What do you feel are the strong points of creationism?

[kenblaster5000]

Really good stuff. The seed is within itself. An apple seed is within an apple on an apple tree.

 

[Assyrian]

Really good stuff. The seed is within itself. An apple seed is within an apple on an apple tree.

And there isn't the slightest hint that the seed has to be exactly like the parent, that there can't be gradual change over the generations. Interestingly we see much bigger and faster changes in plants than animals, bread wheat doesn't have the normal two sets of chromosomes, instead it has six sets of chromosomes from three different grass species. Durum wheat is tetraploid, two different grass species hybridised, but instead of the next generation having two sets of chromosomes which were a combination of the parents' two sets of chromosomes, it had all of the parents chromosomes, and unlike the parents it had four sets of chromosomes instead of two. The result is grass bearing seed, which is still its seed, but is radically different genetically from its parents. And it is worth pointing out, these were the sorts of genetic changes going on right at the time of the beginnings of agriculture we read about in Genesis 2-4.

But look at what Genesis says.
Gen 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
God commanded the earth to produce all the different kinds of grasses herbs and tree. And that is what happened. We just call the process that produces all the differnt kinds of organism 'evolution'.

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying Genesis is describing evolution, what it is saying, what we read throughout scripture, is that God works both in the supernatural miracle, and by through using natural processes. The bread I ate this morning is God's provision, even though the wheat was grown by a farmer, milled in a factory, and I baked it myself, ummm fresh brown Irish soda bread, thank you Lord! Genesis show God, not simply making plants and animals pop into existence, but commanding natural processes to form them.
Gen 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass...
Gen 1:20 Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature...
Gen 1:24 Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind...
But though these kinds of creature and plant are produced, brought forth by the earth by natural processes, it is still the work of God who ordained it all to happen, natural processes are not instead of God creating, they are how God created.
Gen 1:21 And God created great whales...
Gen 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind...

 

[kenblaster5000]

And there isn't the slightest hint that the seed has to be exactly like the parent, that there can't be gradual change over the generations. Interestingly we see much bigger and faster changes in plants than animals, bread wheat doesn't have the normal two sets of chromosomes, instead it has six sets of chromosomes from three different grass species. Durum wheat is tetraploid, two different grass species hybridised, but instead of the next generation having two sets of chromosomes which were a combination of the parents' two sets of chromosomes, it had all of the parents chromosomes, and unlike the parents it had four sets of chromosomes instead of two. The result is grass bearing seed, which is still its seed, but is radically different genetically from its parents. And it is worth pointing out, these were the sorts of genetic changes going on right at the time of the beginnings of agriculture we read about in Genesis 2-4.

But look at what Genesis says.
Gen 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
God commanded the earth to produce all the different kinds of grasses herbs and tree. And that is what happened. We just call the process that produces all the differnt kinds of organism 'evolution'.

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying Genesis is describing evolution, what it is saying, what we read throughout scripture, is that God works both in the supernatural miracle, and by through using natural processes. The bread I ate this morning is God's provision, even though the wheat was grown by a farmer, milled in a factory, and I baked it myself, ummm fresh brown Irish soda bread, thank you Lord! Genesis show God, not simply making plants and animals pop into existence, but commanding natural processes to form them.
Gen 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass...
Gen 1:20 Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature...
Gen 1:24 Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind...
But though these kinds of creature and plant are produced, brought forth by the earth by natural processes, it is still the work of God who ordained it all to happen, natural processes are not instead of God creating, they are how God created.
Gen 1:21 And God created great whales...
Gen 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind...

All well and good, but I notice you snuck in that one discrepancy and it is the word evolution. Why would you put in that bit of lie with so much truth?

 

[Mallon]

I wonder why, if kinds really are true biological entities that cannot reproduce outside of themselves, God would have to warn us against cross-fertilizing them (Leviticus 19:19).

 

[Assyrian]

All well and good, but I notice you snuck in that one discrepancy and it is the word evolution. Why would you put in that bit of lie with so much truth?

What I was showing is that there isn't any conflict between what we have discovered through science and what the bible teaches about God the Creator. Science simply tells us more about his creation.

 

[kenblaster5000]

What I was showing is that there isn't any conflict between what we have discovered through science and what the bible teaches about God the Creator. Science simply tells us more about his creation.

Science such as evolution does not claim to prove a creator. Why are so many evolutionists against the notion of a creator? There is obviously a conflict between proponents of evolution and those who claim to know the creator. Observing the world comes to the conclusion that God's word is true. Evolution does not. Some evolutionists claim that our ancestor is a banana. The word of God does not say this. This evolutionary claim and the bible are in conflict.

 

[kenblaster5000]

Science is something that can be proven and will be repeated continually. Evolution, you claim to be science. But evolution claims we have a common ancestor the banana and cannot be proven nor repeated in testing to be true continually. On the other hand, we can plant a given seed and expect a given result. An apple seed produces an apple tree and an apple tree grows apples. An orange tree does not bear apples. A born-again Christian produces righteousness and a person who is not born-again can only produce self-righteousness. We will know them by their fruit.

 

[kenblaster5000]

What I was showing is that there isn't any conflict between what we have discovered through science and what the bible teaches about God the Creator. Science simply tells us more about his creation.

Then that science would not involve evolution but more like creationism. You are using evolution as a synonym of science. This is vague. They are not ultimately interchangable.

 

[kenblaster5000]

What we fail to see here is that evolution is a theory and not a law or principle. A theory is an idea, not yet proven.

 

[crawfish]

Science such as evolution does not claim to prove a creator. Why are so many evolutionists against the notion of a creator? There is obviously a conflict between proponents of evolution and those who claim to know the creator. Observing the world comes to the conclusion that God's word is true. Evolution does not. Some evolutionists claim that our ancestor is a banana. The word of God does not say this. This evolutionary claim and the bible are in conflict.

You are on a TE-only board. Every single evolutionist here believes that God is the ultimate cause, and fully accepts the idea of a creator.

Any evolutionist who claims a banana is our ancestor would be laughed at. Nobody claims that. What they claim is that all life arose from a common ancestor, so that bananas and humans both came from the same place (but one did not lead to the other, they split off down separate paths long ago).

Then that science would not involve evolution but more like creationism. You are using evolution as a synonym of science. This is vague. They are not ultimately interchangable.

Biological evolution is a subtopic of science - it's not an interchangeable term with science.

What we fail to see here is that evolution is a theory and not a law or principle. A theory is an idea, not yet proven.

A scientific theory is a hypothesis that is evidenced by a great deal of data and observation, and has survived attempts at falsification and criticism to become accepted by the scientific community. It is a different term entirely than Sherlock Holmes looking at the scene of a crime and saying, "I have a theory..."

 

[kenblaster5000]

Good, I am a Christian, but I hope you do not have me thrown out because I am not a theistic evolutionist.

 

[The Lady Kate]

Science such as evolution does not claim to prove a creator. Why are so many evolutionists against the notion of a creator?

Most of them aren't... they have varying opinions on the creator... what they are against is the notion of a creator who created exactly as described in the book of Genesis.

Big difference there.

There is obviously a conflict between proponents of evolution and those who claim to know the creator.

I'm a proponent of evolution, and I know the creator... no conflict here.

Observing the world comes to the conclusion that God's word is true. Evolution does not.

Explain.

Some evolutionists claim that our ancestor is a banana.

Name one.

The word of God does not say this. This evolutionary claim and the bible are in conflict.

Only problem is it's not an evolutionary claim... it's yours. Now support it.

 

[The Lady Kate]

Good, I am a Christian, but I hope you do not have me thrown out because I am not a theistic evolutionist.

We have no interest in throwing you out... wouldn't be much of a debate if we did.

 

[Assyrian]

Science such as evolution does not claim to prove a creator.

No of course it doesn't. No science does, it simply studies the world God created. And of course there cannot be a conflict between what we learn about the nature of the universe God created, and God who created it.

Why are so many evolutionists against the notion of a creator?

Well the Christians who are scientists certainly aren't, neither are Muslims or Hindus. There are plenty of agnostics who simply don't care, they just want to get on and do their science. It is the same with most atheist scientists, though you do have more militant atheists like Dawkins who misuses science to preach his philosophy. What you are more likely to come across scientists who are against creationism, but because it teaches bad science not because it proposes a creator.

There is obviously a conflict between proponents of evolution and those who claim to know the creator.

I know the creator, so does glaudys, mallon, shernren and all the other TEs here. There is no conflict. There is only a conflict if you think God could not have used evolution.

Observing the world comes to the conclusion that God's word is true.

Very true indeed.
Psalm 19:1 To the choirmaster. A Psalm of David. The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork. 2 Day to day pours out speech, and night to night reveals knowledge.
But you need faith hear the message too.
Heb 4:2 ...but the message they heard did not benefit them, because they were not united by faith with those who listened.

Evolution does not.

Sure it does, but it challenges misunderstandings you may have about God's word first. Like I said you need faith and you need to seek God for a deeper understanding of his amazing word.

Some evolutionists claim that our ancestor is a banana. The word of God does not say this. This evolutionary claim and the bible are in conflict.

What?! No biologist would ever claim we are descended from bananas. Who told you that? Seriously, whoever told you, never believe another word that person tells you about evolution.

 

[crawfish]

Good, I am a Christian, but I hope you do not have me thrown out because I am not a theistic evolutionist.

Sorry, that's not what I meant. I just meant that we're all Christians here. I'm not interested in kicking anybody out.

 

[kenblaster5000]

No of course it doesn't. No science does, it simply studies the world God created. And of course there cannot be a conflict between what we learn about the nature of the universe God created, and God who created it.

Well the Christians who are scientists certainly aren't, neither are Muslims or Hindus. There are plenty of agnostics who simply don't care, they just want to get on and do their science. It is the same with most atheist scientists, though you do have more militant atheists like Dawkins who misuses science to preach his philosophy. What you are more likely to come across scientists who are against creationism, but because it teaches bad science not because it proposes a creator.

I know the creator, so does glaudys, mallon, shernren and all the other TEs here. There is no conflict. There is only a conflict if you think God could not have used evolution.

Very true indeed.
Psalm 19:1 To the choirmaster. A Psalm of David. The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork. 2 Day to day pours out speech, and night to night reveals knowledge.
But you need faith hear the message too.
Heb 4:2 ...but the message they heard did not benefit them, because they were not united by faith with those who listened.

Sure it does, but it challenges misunderstandings you may have about God's word first. Like I said you need faith and you need to seek God for a deeper understanding of his amazing word.

What?! No biologist would ever claim we are descended from bananas. Who told you that? Seriously, whoever told you, never believe another word that person tells you about evolution.

I did not look to see if this was theistic or not at first. You have addressed that. I do not agree that God used evolution in any way. Evolution is a man made concept. His ways are higher than our ways, and His thoughts are higher than our thoughts. I agree that we can look at the world and God will speak to us and we will get revelation from meditating on the word. When we are born-again, look all things are new. Not calling into question anyone's salvation here. I am not as experienced in theistic evolution as many in here. I do not expect anyone to condescend to teach me. Yes, condescend can be a bad or good word given the denotation of the word as opposed to the connotation of the word. Condescension where it is not effective is a failure to teach on a person's level, but Jesus Christ condescended to teach truth to babes. I will not believe another word someone says about us coming from bananas and apes.

 

[Assyrian]

What I was showing is that there isn't any conflict between what we have discovered through science and what the bible teaches about God the Creator. Science simply tells us more about his creation.

Then that science would not involve evolution but more like creationism.

No I think you need tackle the question a bit deeper. It isn't enough to say 'no, not evolution it's creationism'. Look at the reasons I said there wasn't a conflict and see if they make sense to you or not. It is quite possible that while clearly one has to be wrong, neither are in conflict with God as creator.

An example of this the church learned in the past was when heliocentrism came along and contradicted the old geocentric idea that the sun went around the earth. People at the time seriously thought that heliocentrism contradicted the bible, they had verses to prove it too. But while one scientific model was right and the other wrong, from the point of view of scripture neither contradicted the bible. But it did mean taking another look at the bible and the way they understood those passages.

You are using evolution as a synonym of science. This is vague. They are not ultimately interchangable.

Technically evolution is a part of science. While you can't use 'evolution' when your are talking about science, you can use science to describe evolution, because it is a science. I was speaking more broadly, not just that what we learned through science about the evolution of life, but also for example, Matt 5:45 so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good... is not contradicted by astronomy, or ...and sends rain on the just and on the unjust, is not in conflict with meteorology.

 

[The Lady Kate]

I did not look to see if this was theistic or not at first. You have addressed that. I do not agree that God used evolution in any way.

Well, that's your business, but why not?

Evolution is a man made concept.

So is language, but God has no problem using that to communicate with us.

His ways are higher than our ways, and His thoughts are higher than our thoughts.

Of course... but so what?

I agree that we can look at the world and God will speak to us and we will get revelation from meditating on the word. When we are born-again, look all things are new. Not calling into question anyone's salvation here.

Then what are you doing?

I am not as experienced in theistic evolution as many in here. I do not expect anyone to condescend to teach me. Yes, condescend can be a bad or good word given the denotation of the word as opposed to the connotation of the word. Condescension where it is not effective is a failure to teach on a person's level, but Jesus Christ condescended to teach truth to babes.

You have no interest in learning about that which you speak against?

I will not believe another word someone says about us coming from bananas and apes.

Has it occurred to you that the person who lied to you about evolutionists saying we come from bananas may have lied to you about other things concerning evolution?

Are you interested in separating lies from the truth?

 

[kenblaster5000]

Well, that's your business, but why not?



So is language, but God has no problem using that to communicate with us.

His ways are higher than our ways, and His thoughts are higher than our thoughts./

Of course... but so what?



Then what are you doing?




You have no interest in learning about that which you speak against?



Has it occurred to you that the person who lied to you about evolutionists saying we come from bananas may have lied to you about other things concerning evolution?

Are you interested in separating lies from the truth?

I am interested in truth. You being a Christian, and an evolutionist can be diligent to separate the truth from the lies. I have no interest in evolution. I am interested in God's word.

 

[The Lady Kate]

I am interested in truth. You being a Christian, and an evolutionist can be diligent to separate the truth from the lies. I have no interest in evolution. I am interested in God's word.

If you have no interest in evolution, then why are you on a board dealing with theistic evolution? Clearly you're still welcome here, but if you're not interested in evolution, you're going to find the conversations very dull.

If you have no interest in evolution, what did you mean by "I think the strengths of creationism are the weaknesses of evolution." Clearly you should have some interest to know what those weaknesses are or even if they are weaknesses at all.

If you have no interest in evolution, then where did you pick up that nonsense about "some evolutionists claim we came from bananas"? Clearly you had enough interest to pick up some absurdly bad ideas about what evolution is.