The Full Spectrum of Christian Belief on Origins - where are you?

[paul becke]

Here is a Guardian article which is encouraging and hilarious re Dawkins.

Ultra-Darwinists and the pious gene | Mark Vernon | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

I'm not the slightest bit interested in the method whereby God created the world, so I'm easy about so-called, Creationism (in fact Evolution to Christian believers in it, in no wise excludes God' creative role in the slightest, of course); and I'm also easy about Evolution.

The former, because God has a terrific sense of humour and I think, enjoys "scattering the proud in the imagination of their hearts." And Evolution, because it's at least as much a tribute to God's designing and creative skills as Creationism.

But what tickles me to bits is that it seems that leading evolutionary biologists are no longer willing to be brow-beaten by know-nothing, militant atheists into subscribing to the canons of scientific truth, as laid down and set in stone by the ultra Darwinist fundamentalists, who have ruled the roost for so long.

Most working scientists and their universities rely on the large corporations for the funding of their research, while the corporations use a false projection of the image of science as all-knowing, and exclusively so, in order to 'manufacture consent'; to bamboozle the public in different ways.

All knowledge is 'sacrosanct', so they must not be made subject to moral requirements; and science is the perfect vehicle, to their minds, to justify their avoidance of accountability because it is always so 'certain' and indisputable - as they implicitly claim. Closely allied to this is the 'bottom line' of Big Business - another idol precluding any considerations of morality as we know it, as no lesser an authority than the late Milton Friedman explicitly stated.

 

[grabsuccess]

I believe in the young Earth. The rest of the Universe could have been created with the appearance of age.

I listened to Dr. Carl Baugh explain this on his television show teaching how the Earth was formed almost instantly.

http://www.halos.com

"Etched within Earth's foundation rocks — the granites — are beautiful microspheres of coloration, halos, produced by the radioactive decay of primordial polonium, which is known to have only a fleeting existence.
The following simple analogy will show how these polonium microspheres — or halos — contradict the evolutionary belief that granites formed as hot magma slowly cooled over millions of years. To the contrary, this analogy demonstrates how these halos provide unambiguous evidence of both an almost instantaneous creation of granites and the young age of the earth.
A speck of polonium in molten rock can be compared to an Alka-Seltzer dropped into a glass of water. The beginning of effervescence is equated to the moment that polonium atoms began to emit radioactive particles. In molten rock the traces of those radioactive particles would disappear as quickly as the Alka-Seltzer bubbles in water. But if the water were instantly frozen, the bubbles would be preserved. Likewise, polonium halos could have formed only if the rapidly "effervescing" specks of polonium had been instantly encased in solid rock.
An exceedingly large number of polonium halos are embedded in granites around the world. Just as frozen Alka-Seltzer bubbles would be clear evidence of the quick-freezing of the water, so are these many polonium halos undeniable evidence that a sea of primordial matter quickly "froze" into solid granite. The occurrence of these polonium halos, then, distinctly implies that our earth was formed in a very short time, in complete harmony with the biblical record of creation."

I believe the Bible can be taken literally for the most part and the majority of Christians hold this view.

http://www.twopaths.com/faq_BibleTrue.htm

"In the majority view, many of the Bible's stories are historically accurate and should be interpreted literally. But some spiritual truths are revealed through the common literary mechanisms of allegory, parable, simile, metaphor, hyperbole, and irony that were never intended to be taken literally. Such mechanisms serve to "paint a mental picture" of ideas not easily expressed in words. The Bible reveals timeless spiritual truths about God, love, salvation, faith, morals and ethics that transcend the realms of science and history. We can appreciate the beauty of a sunrise whether or not the sun literally "rises" above the earth. In the same way, we can understand and appreciate the lessons of the Bible whether or not all its stories are true in a literal sense."

Yes, I believe in the young Earth, Adam and Eve, and life was created and designed to only produce its own kind. There is adaption built into this design to help a species survive a changing environment, but that is as far as evolution goes. The Bible is most extraordinarily accurate with its historical and scientific facts though it was primarily written as a religious and moral guide. The writers were definitely inspired but they wrote with their own words.

Isaiah talks about God sitting on the circle of the Earth not a flat Earth.

Isaiah 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in.

Do stars sing, certainly they do and NASA states that it is like an orchestral creation.

Job 38:7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

Creation vs. Evolution

http://biblestudymanuals.net/k75.htm


"According to the observation of radio-astrophysicists, stars, by radio wave context, are 'singing' to us....

..Stars throughout the universe are emitting radio wave energy... these stars emitting radio wave energy, but that there is music on those radio waves of energy.... not only is music emitted, but the music being emitted is in a major key. The music being emitted from these stars is harmonious. NASA compared the music being emitted from these star sources to the instruments of an orchestral creation. It seems that everywhere we look, creation is orchestrated. Recently, with some special plasma ionized research units, NASA found that Neptune and some of the other planets in our solar system emit a signal which sounds like whistling, as if it were whistling a tune..."

So, you tell me if the Holy Bible is accurate or not, to write just how accurate it is would probably take a novel just as big.

We were designed and created just as everything that ever existed was. We were created by a God that had no beginning because he is outside of the boundaries of time and space. God was not created, he has always existed and without him nothing was made.

John 1:1 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

 

[mark kennedy]

I believe that the Bible is redemptive history and the true account of human history. I believe the Darwinian tree of life to be the work of secular clerics who have mastered the fine art of mythography.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[freezerman2000]

I believe that the earth is old...very old. God created life, but not as we know it...it evolved slowly into the forms we recognize today.
We share a common ancestor with the lower primates, but each split off from that ancestor to form our own separate family branches.
Adam and Eve represent the first of the Semitic tribes...when he created them in his image, he created them in his spiritual image...without sin.

 

[LittleFeather]

Well this is a tough one.

I take the literal Hebrew of the OT very serious. I think Young Earth Creationist do not take it correctly. My literal view of the Hebrew is that of:

5. Progressive Creationists; Believe that the earth and universe were created at the time science says, but that each "day" in Genesis referred to an indefinite period of time. Genesis is a historically and scientifically accurate account, just that it happened over a VERY long time period.

Evolution is correct, but there was a literal Adam and Eve as well, like:

6. Theistic Evolutionists

And that all this is reconciled with the Hebrew and a Panentheist view of God.

At least this is what I tried to show in my book “Simply Logic and Reason”

 

[Ron Cooke]

Endless discussion about creation versus evolution. And no conclusion.

As I read through these threads, one idea keeps haunting me. Would it not be more positive and constructive if we bundled up all this energy and used it to God's purpose?

Is it both possible and desirable to bring Christianity into the 21st century?

 

[lucaspa]

Endless discussion about creation versus evolution. And no conclusion.

There is conclusion; it's just that some people won't accept it. Like flat earthers and geocentrists won't accept the conclusions in those areas.

As I read through these threads, one idea keeps haunting me. Would it not be more positive and constructive if we bundled up all this energy and used it to God's purpose?

Is it both possible and desirable to bring Christianity into the 21st century?

Very possible and desirable. However, you are going to have to do it by accepting evolution. Denying biological evolution, old earth, old universe simply brings ridicule on Christianity in the 21st century.

You are also going to have to start teaching Christians the philosophy of science, so that they can understand both the strengths and limitations of science. They need to understand that neither "God did it" nor "God did not do it" are scientific statements and why. Science is agnostic, but not hostile to theism. We also need to get back to the Christian concepts of "two books" and "secondary causes". Those have dropped out of the vocabulary of Christians. If Christianity is to be brought into the 21st century, ironically both those pre-20th century terms need to be revived.

 

[Ron Cooke]

Christians face a moment of truth. Socialist cultural democracy clashes with ancient biblical doctrine. Long held traditions are challenged by patronizing ideology. The theology that values human life is threatened by an ideology of contempt for personal worth.
Yet despite their predilection for contemptuous commentary, even those who disparage Christianity need an enlightened vision of the spiritual. We humans have always embraced a sense of the sacred, a connection with something beyond the physical. The Christian theological response is both simple and difficult.

Christianity must fulfill its mission by combining the essence of Christian faith with 21st century knowledge.

 

[theFijian]

Christianity must fulfill its mission by combining the essence of Christian faith with 21st century knowledge.

So Christianity would never have been able to fulfil it's mission prior to the 21st century? What happens in the 22nd century?

 

[Assyrian]

It will be busy fulfilling it 22nd century mission of course.

 

[johnthefifth]

and so on...

 

[Drogheda]

a form of number 8

 

[cupid dave]

HERE IS WHERE THE te CHRISTIANS ARE ON THIS:

1) It is clear that the Universe DID have a beginning, 13.9 billion years ago. 
(Gen 1:1)
http://kofh2u.tripod.com/id19.html
 
 
2) The hot spinning molten matter that was to coalesce into the planet Earth was without form: 
http://kofh2u.tripod.com/id132.html
 
3) There were seven long Cosmic "days" since that Big Bang, which we call the seven cosmic/geological Eras.
http://kofh2u.tripod.com/genesispic/Eraclock.jpg
 
4) A Cosmic Dark Age did precede that advent of let there be light to flood the cosmos.
(Gen 1:3-5)              
http://kofh2u.tripod.com/DarkAge2.jpg
 
5) There was one ocean, once, where all the waters had been collected together.
(Gen 1:9)
http://kofh2u.tripod.com/genesispic/superocean.jpg
 
6) Pangea/Rodinia did actually confirm that the dry land appeared surrounded totally by water.
(Gen 1:10)
http://kofh2u.tripod.com/id123.html
 
 
7) The Plant kingdom did establish itself before the Animal kingdom.
(Gen 1:11)
 
http://kofh2u.tripod.com/id18.html 
 
8) The Sun and the Moon and all the Stars were "MADE," given authority over circadian Earth Time as soon as life appeared:
http://kofh2u.tripod.com/id126.html
 
 
9) Man WAS the last step in the evolution of Dominant Life on earth.
(Gen 1:27)
http://kofh2u.tripod.com/genesispic/sethNoah.jpg
 
10) Man HAS managed to form a mental IMAGE of "Father Nature" by understanding of His Laws and creation.
http://kofh2u.tripod.com/id21.html
 
11) Gen 5:2 says god called them, the man and his wife, the "Adamites," a species:
 
Gen 5:2 Male and female created he THEM; and blessed THEM, and called THEIR name Adam, (a species), in the day when THEY were created.
http://kofh2u.tripod.com/id31.html
 
 
12) The 22 names in the genealogy compare directly with the 22 extinct species in the ascent to Modern man.


http://kofh2u.tripod.com/id143.html
 
The Last Human: A Guide to Twenty-Two Species of Extinct Humans
 
by G.J. Sawyer,  (Author), Viktor Deak (Author), Esteban Sarmiento (Author), Richard Milner (Author), Donald C. Johanson (Foreword), Maeve Leakey (Afterword), Ian Tattersall (Introduction)
 
http://www.amazon.com/Last-Human-Twenty-Two-Species-Extinct/dp/0300100477/ref=pd_ys_ir_all_76?pf_rd_p=258372101&pf_rd_s=center-1&pf_rd_t=1501&pf_rd_i=list&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=0ABGJDWD85JKZFZWTV3D

 

[Huram Abi]

Nope. That's just you.

 

[3 Angels Messages]

The scripture gives...

...a vast Bible resource tool site [flashplayer required], see section "Biblical Creation and History" and also section "Halos":

Pearl Trees Of Life

...freely you have received, freely give...

 

[mark kennedy]

I wanted to answer the question that is the theme of the thread at least one more time. The truth is I'm at the end of what has been an amazing journey. I honestly feel the controversy has all but passed along with most of the other conflicts of the overall culture war with no winners. I know I learned a great deal, I'll always be grateful to CF for hosting these discussions and wish the boards much success in the future fielding similar topics.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[FrozenOne]

I'll raise my hand and say I'm a 3. YEC

 

[LisztLover]

Number 7 completely sums up what I believe.

 

[food4thought]

Somewhere in this sea of posts I answered, but I just don't have the patience to read through 40+ pages to find it... my understanding of what others believe and why has been greatly enhanced by this website, and for that, I am thankful.

Every position has it's problems with science and/or Scripture, but I find myself leaning towards #4. I could very well be wrong.

On a side note, I wonder why God said something was good each day, except for day 2 where he created the firmament by dividing the waters. I am sure that there is a profound truth to be found in that, yet I have only suppositions so far. Any insight to this would be appreciated, but please refrain from posting tiresomely long videos or articles without providing a summary of what it says, so I can determine whether I want to take the time to view it.

Thanks in advance;
Mike

 

[ryanon]

I'm A True Believer But I'm Also Agnostic At The Same Time