Origins TheologyForum for the discussion of Creation Science (Young/Old) vs Theistic Evolution. Discussion of Atheistic Evolution should be taken to the Discussion and Debate forums.
What specific elements of this idea is it that appeals most aestetically?
I don't think that I could properly get that across, not just on a message board but even face to face. It's like asking why a man thinks one particular woman is attractive yet another man might think she's repulsive ... you can use all kinds of words to describe either opinion but beauty is just too subjective to translate for others. If you understand what I mean, lol. For me, the YEC view just represents a more majestic and appealing method than the others.
Originally Posted by Sabertooth
Organic maturity did not require age. Inorganic material does not mature. Comparing the two is a bit a bit unfounded.
Inorganic material does indeed mature. Stars don't just suddenly wink into being. They begin as an accumulation of gases and pass through fairly definitive life stages until they eventually collapse and explode. I'm not speaking of maturity in the sense of a childs "whaa, I want it it's mine" to an adults "sure, you can use my stuff", but rather maturity in the sense of a point in the growth/life/stages of an object.
Originally Posted by Sabertooth}[size=2
Further, if these were ages, instead of days, either the plants would have broken the soil or you would have some pretty hungry herbivores...!
Sigh, people and their relentless logic I'm not claiming to be logical with this, not one single tiny bit. If some part doesn't make sense then it doesn't make sense, no biggie.
Why are people so wrapped up in proving it one way or the other? My point is, it doesn't matter. God created everything, that's truth. How he did that is really irrelevant (for me, at least). I just appreciate the beauty in the Genesis account and prefer to think of it that way.
Anyway, all I've presented is a viewpoint. It is one based strictly on a poetic and aesthetic preference. Whatever works for you is good too
[/size]
Speaking of #6, I must say I do see Biblical evidence for [a guided?] micro-evolution, even while holding to YEC.
If our understanding is correct that the serpent became the first [and only] limbless reptile [see Gen 3:14], it would follow that he is the common ancestor of ALL of our present-day snakes, a radical example of micro-evolution at work. This would infer that the same diversification process could have happened to other animals, as well, though there is no direct Biblical evidence to support this.
Also, that would show how [Adam] could have named ALL the animals in one "afternoon."
Genesis 2:19-22 says, "Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field. But for Adam no suitable helper was found. So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh. Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man."
Genesis 1:27 says, of Day 6, "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them."
It wasn't some time after Day 6 that He created her, because "By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. [Gen 2:2]"
Since [Adam] AND the first woman, Eve, were created on Day 6 AND [Adam] named ALL the animals BEFORE her creation, he had to have named them all in less than a day. We must remember he was in an unfallen state and, probably, had the advantage of fewer "types" of animals, given the argument, above.
If our understanding is correct that the serpent became the first [and only] limbless reptile [see Gen 3:14], it would follow that he is the common ancestor of ALL of our present-day snakes, a radical example of micro-evolution at work. This would infer that the same diversification process could have happened to other animals, as well, though there is no direct Biblical evidence to support this.
That would be Lamarckism. Unless God also modified his genes as well when taking the legs away.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
There are Creationists, and there are Realists. Which one are you? - Dracil "The Bible is true, and some of it happened" - Catholic priest
"There may be many other fish in the sea, but there are just as many fishermen." - Dracil
That would be Lamarckism. Unless God also modified his genes as well when taking the legs away.
Since it was a curse on him and his descendants, it would almost have to include a modification to his genes. If you question the reality of curses, check Joshua 6:26 and 1Kings 16:34.
Literal, Biblical creation is vitalistic [i.e. miraculous] and not at the mercy of mechanism. It is full of examples of God's sudden, specific miraculous interventions in the affairs of Earth, after Day 7: the Noarchian Flood [Gen 7:6-], the scattering of humanity [Gen 11:8], the dividing of the super-continent [Gen 10:25], an extended day [Joshua 10:12-14] and Earth's temporary rotational reversal [2Kings 20:8-11].
When the present state of nature does not agree with its given initial state, it is reasonable [and Biblically acceptable] to deduce that God intervened in a deliberate way. The rules of mechanism only seem to apply in the absence of vitalistic [i.e. miraculous] activity.
Your only other choice is to interpret the Bible against some "higher" standard, at which point it ceases to be a standard, altogether, making your worldview completely extra-Biblical.
Example: the separation of gene pools given, above, are a great basis for the emergence of the races. We start with one couple, probably red, and, now, have many races. The separation given, above, may not be the actual explanation, but it is a Biblically viable one.
Two side notes:
1. If the first serpent is, indeed, the father of all modern serpents, it is likely to have had moderate features. Its fossils, if found, would probably be indistinguishable from some modern serpents.
2. I find it interesting that Eve did not [seem to] wince when the serpent struck up a conversation with her...
Sabertooth
Last edited by Sabertooth; 7th August 2005 at 05:28 PM.
the separation of gene pools given, above, are a great basis for the emergence of the races. We start with one couple, probably red, and, now, have many races. The separation given, above, may not be the actual explanation, but it is a Biblically viable one.
Two side notes:
1. If the first serpent is, indeed, the father of all modern serpents, it is likely to have had moderate features. Its fossils, if found, would probably be indistinguishable from some modern serpents.
2. I find it interesting that Eve did not [seem to] wince when the serpent struck up a conversation with her...
Sabertooth
The origin of life has been linked to Africa. Which would elude to the origin of man being more likely to be black than red. I'm just theorizing here. On a genetic level, all races of mankind are almost identical. The difference is very slight. Isn't it also possible that races evolved to suit the climate of where they lived? That is what makes sense to me.
Regarding your sidenotes: What if the serpant, was not a literal serpant, but a symbol of something else?
Many things in the Bible were lessons written in a language that would make the spiritual truths of God easier to comprehend for mankind. Humanity is blind and ignorant after all. Parables and symbology are frequently used.
The serpant in some ancient scripture is used to symbolize the ushering in of knowledge or sentience to mankind. Without which we would not be self aware. Is our self awareness a curse? Would it be better to be a dog? I'm not so sure. In the scriptures I've read ignorance is evil and knowledge is godly.
And I have always wondered why, if God is omnitient as I believe God is, that God tempted Adam and Eve with the tree of knowledge put within their grasp...knowing full well that they would partake of the fruit God forbade them to partake of before they did? I think that God not only knew what would happen, God engineered it to take place as it did. Intelligent design. Omnipotence, omnitience, omnipresence.
All creation is balance. Good and evil. Light and dark. Knowledge and ignorance. Male and female. If God created one and not the other, would the world function the way it was intended to? Would anyone know the difference? Would good be appreciated or desired? Conflict is a learning tool. Adversity refines the soul. Evolution ensues. It all makes sense.
I'm not an authority on any of this. I just read a lot. And think a lot. And question. And wonder. I know this isn't a popular opinion, but I'm glad I'm a sentient being. As blind as I may very well be, being limitted as I am to my humanity.
Why does everyone assume they were having an interview across a desk. Have you ever been tempted by the evil one? How did it go?
I am not referring to the fact that that she was tempted, but that she had a casual conversation with an animal. It would suggest that ALL animals had the capacity carry on a conversation at that time.
I am not referring to the fact that that she was tempted, but that she had a casual conversation with an animal. It would suggest that ALL animals had the capacity carry on a conversation at that time.
Sabertooth
Who says it had to be at the level of speech? Some people today claim to be able to communincate with their animals. I think we are too quick to assume that the serpent spoke aloud and Eve engaged it in conversation.
I'm not claiming to be logical with this, not one single tiny bit. If some part doesn't make sense then it doesn't make sense, no biggie.
Linear Mode
