Young Earth Creation as opposed to Old Earth Creation (aka evolution lite)

[Metal Minister]

To the original poster Papias. Would you still believe evolution if you knew it was scientifically impossible y/n?

Thanks (Hi all new here)

Welcome Jinx! Love the name!

May God Richly Bless You! MM

 

[samaus12345]

hi thanks like your name too reminds of that movie "machine gun preacher" but i havnt seen i yet...

 

[Metal Minister]

hi thanks like your name too reminds of that movie "machine gun preacher" but i havnt seen i yet...

Nope, not me. I'm just an ordained minister with a love of metalcore! ; ) I wish I had half the guts that guy has, or even half as incredible of a conversion!

May God Richly Bless You! MM

 

[miamited]

So hey jinx,

How is it in the outback today? Glad to have you here.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Papias]

OK, getting to some that I missed.......

MM wrote:

Genesis 1:27 reads as hebrew poetry. if all of the creation in genesis 1 is poetic, why would this stand out? that being said, if the first 11 chapters of genesis are poetry, or methaphorical, where does it stop? which person is metaphorical? Adam? Noah? Abraham? and if they are metaphorical, then what about the table of nations and shem, ham, and japheth?

OK, so we agree that there is at least some poetry. As for shem, etc, I don't know because we don't have much information from God's other revelation (God's creation) which is specific to them, and I haven't read commentaries by scholars that say whether those later verses are still written poetically. Maybe shem, etc, are literal people, in the same way that I see Adam as a literal person?

in point of fact, genesis 1 is not set up poetically.

According to scholars, it is, and that can be seen even by us reading it, with it's repetitive structure.

yes, the use of eagles wings is metaphoric. if you read futher on, he calls them his treasure. obviously it is a metaphor.

OK, so we agree that metaphor is used at times in both Genesis and Exodus, so why are you relying on a reading in the very next chapter (Ex 20) as proof that every word of Genesis must be interpreted literally? And how can you tell it is "obviously" a metaphor?

Note still unanswered:

First, you didn't say why it would include the non-historical language I mentioned.

Secondly - for the light idea, are you saying that after the sun was created, that God got dim so now we only see the sun? Or that there were then three lights (God, the sun, the moon)? Or that God got dim sometime since then? This seems like an idea inviting atheists to ridicule us, asking us where in the sky we should look today to see the glowing God.

no, god created the light, and then a source for the light. otherwise he would have to be visible to mankind.

So if someone were there (or if there were a video recorder) before the sun was created, they would have seen the glowing God in the sky? Or are you are saying that in a literal description of the situation, that there was light without a light source? What are you saying a camera would have recorded then?

Another similar problem would be that without the sun, the Earth would just be flying through space, not in an orbit. So are you saying that God made it to be flying through space, then made the sun in the right place ahead of it to capture it, like playing cosmic baseball? and so on.

Again, no. god held the earth in place as he does all the heavens now. the fact that he uses gravity (something we cant explain yet) is simply science proving his exisitence.

So God had the earth orbiting an empty place in the solar system, and so for a while there was an earth orbiting nothing? Then did God do a quick switch to put the sun in there, with gravity to hold it? If God produced the sun before turning off his 'empty gravity', then would there have been momentary double gravity pulling the earth in to the sun?

i wasnt saying it wasnt being taught, only letting you know it wasnt a universal catholic teaching

Or that some people didn't remember it. I'm sure that both occur, and that many Catholic teachings might be overlooked in some schools.

no, but if they told god an angel told them to do it, they could be excused, as angels are god's messangers. also, god knew that satan had taken the snakes form, and used the incident to foreshadow christ's coming.

Since God knew that there were fallen angels, wouldn't God have warned them ahead of time that some angels could tell them falsehoods? More importantly, isn't the talking snake itself a clear indication that the story is a metaphor, because real snakes don't talk, and if they do, pepole would be surprised to see that. Yet, Adam and Eve both show no surprise, suggesting that this is not a historical story.

And they wouldn't have been if spoken to by anything else? I don't follow. On the other hand, why wouldn't they be surprised by a talking animal - they certainly would have seen that animals don't talk before that.

**********
remember matt. 10:16. it shows that snakes or serpents were considered wise. what better form to take then that which is considered wise? (much like secular scientists today?)

So MM, would you be surprised at all if an animal, say a snake or a kangaroo, started telling you to eat some magical fruit? Or would that seem normal to you?

You didn't answer the questions. Do you seriously think that God has a body, with literal feet, a literal appendix, and a literal rectum? Saying that "God made man in God's physical image" seems to be inviting ridicule from atheists, who sometimes claim that we Christians believe in some white bearded guy who flies around the clouds in a levitating chair, like the lawn chair balloonist.

According to the Bible, the first man was ...., made in the image of God (Genesis 1:26).

You still have not answered if you think God has a literal human body. Does he, or not?

According to the Bible, the first man was perfect, made in the image of God (Genesis 1:26).

Please stop adding words to scripture that are not there. Gen 1:26 doesn't say "perfect". It says "in the image of God". That could mean "being a conscious being with a spirit".

According to the Bible, the first man was perfect, made in the image of God (Genesis 1:26). Luke goes so far as to call Adam the Son of God (Luke 3:38). In his allegorical novel, Voyage to Venus, C.S. Lewis1 paints a word picture of the dawn of history. He makes Adam resemble Jesus Christ. This is not far-fetched, for just as Christ, on earth in human form, was sinless, so Adam for a time, was sinless too. Lewis writes,
‘It was a face which no man can say he does not know. You might ask how it was possible to look upon it without idolatry, not to mistake it for that of which it was a likeness. For the resemblance was, in its own fashion, infinite, so that almost you could wonder at finding no sorrows on his brow and no wounds in his hands and feet. Yet there was no danger of mistaking, not one moment of confusion, no least sally of the will towards forbidden reverence. Where likeness was greatest, mistake was least possible. Perhaps this is always so. A clever waxwork can be made so like a man that for a moment it deceives us; the great portrait which is far more deeply like him does not. Plaster images of the Holy One may before now have drawn to themselves the adoration they were meant to arouse for the reality. But here, where his living image, like him within and without, made by his own bare hands out of the depth of divine artistry, his masterpiece of self portraiture coming forth from his workshop to delight all worlds, walked and spoke, it could never be taken for more than an image. Nay, the very beauty of it lay in the certainty that it was a copy, like and not the same, a rhyme, an exquisite reverberation of untreated music prolonged in a created medium’.
Man in the image of God; what does this mean in practical terms? It cannot refer to bodily, biological form since God is a Spirit and man is earthly. But while it may be true that the body does not belong to the image, since God does not have a body, yet somehow we would like to see man’s body (which is a very real part of man) included in the image. Language and creativity,—two important parts of the image, are impossible without a body. And God the Almighty agreed to share with man dominion and authority over the animal kingdom (Genesis 1:28), an activity in which the whole man, body as well as mind, is involved. Furthermore the Son of God honored the human body by becoming flesh and dwelling among men (John 1:14) (Hebrews 2:14). Lewis suggests that before the Fall, the first man, Adam mirrored Christ the man of Galilee even more nearly than Christ would have resembled his own half-brothers. If this is so, it seems almost blasphemy to consider Adam sired by a shambling ape.

Cutting and pasting webpages without attribution, as if they were your own words, is plagiarism. You cut and pasted much of your post from this site:
Man: The Image of God - Answers in Genesis

and passed it off as your own. That kind of behavior is unfortunately common with creationists, and I expect an apology to myself and everyone here for this plagiarism - especially since you have, in the past, been called on just using websites, and being asked to make your own statements (see post #109 on this thread).

I'm not sure it is worth my time to continute this discussion until it is clear to me that you are presenting your ideas in your own words instead of plagiarizing.

Papias

 

[Papias]

jinx wrote:

To the original poster Papias.

Um, sorry, the OP is not by me.

Would you still believe evolution if you knew it was scientifically impossible y/n?

You mean if there was good evidence from God's other revelation (His creation) that evolution was false? They I would reject evolution.

Thanks (Hi all new here)

Hi! Welcome to the fora!

In His name-

Papias

 

[samaus12345]

I mean if you knew it was scientifically impossible for a prokaryote to transform into a eukaryote to transform into a fish to transform into birds/land dwelling animals and human beings. This is of course after inorganic matter (rock) turns into "life", which of course (spontaneous generation) was put in the grave over 100 years ago by Loius Pasteur- "life begets life" "spontaneous generation is a dream" he said. Would you still believe it if the above was scientifically impossible (which it is) or keep believing it? Also do you read Richard Dawkins books y/n?

Genesis is historical narrative. Not poetic narrative. Like if i kept a daily diary of my activities each day for a week. Then hundreds of years later some person comes along and reads my diary and says "well when he said day 1/monday he was really referring to a "long period of time" and all these activities he claims to have done in one literal day were actually (insert desired/made up time frame here, usually billions/millions of years). I wrote the diary. I knew what i intended to write.

Poetic narrative is like comparing things. Psalms etc. "your eyes are blue like the sky and your dress is red like the sun".

 

[samaus12345]

outback is cold lol tyvm for asking lol

 

[mark kennedy]

In my opinion, there are only three reasons why a bible believing Christian would believe in macro-evolution.

1) First, and probably most common is that they've gone through our wonderful liberal indoctrination camp, public school. Yes, public school where we send our children to learn that there is no God, and we're all animals related to worms.

Not generally well known but the Scopes monkey trial had nothing to do with apes or evolution. It was mostly about social Darwinism.

2) Secondly, it may be that in an effort not to offend, or perhaps to insulate themselves from ridicule they've thrown their lot in with the evolutionists, compromising a perfectly good bible with an absurd theory to keep from being attacked for their faith.

They constantly bash creationism but they seem oblivious that worshiping God as Creator is essential Christianity. That's why John's Gospel, Genesis and the Nicene Creed start off with creation.

3) And third, and most disheartening, a total lack of faith in God. They believe the same creator who created the earth, moon, and stars, the universe, the heavens and all that in them is, the seas and all that in them is, had to use a mechanism by which death would bring forth man, and in so doing make Himself into a liar. He states in Genesis, that by sin, man brought death into the world.

Creation is inextricably linked to the new birth, the resurrection and the new creation at the end of the age. Theistic evolutionists are strangely silent about this aspect. If God did nothing from the big bang on what exactly are we trusting Him to do?

My point behind this thread is not to attack evolutionists, and I in no way think that Christians who believe in evolution are somehow not still saved. My point is to discuss theologicaly the creation as stated in the bible, and where macro-evolution is supposed to fit.

Got an answer for that one. How many living creatures on the Ark, how long ago was that, how many living creatures alive today that are their direct descendants? That is macroevolution no matter how loosely you define it.

That being said let me clarify something. No one denies that variations among the kinds (sometimes called micro-evolution) happens. It's demonstrable, testable, and provable. Macro-evo, tries to piggy back off of micro-evo's evidence to seem possible. Now, without getting into a scientific debate on whether macro-evo is true or not, I instead want to focus on where in scripture old EOC's get their proof.

That's the dirty little secret, the evidence presents the same problems for the creationist as the darwinian. The only difference is the timeline and the scope of the variations. Bacteria cannot evolve into Eukaryote cells (plant and animal cells) but accelerated evolution from the genus level and perhaps well beyond is a given in biology.

The real issue is how things evolution and the means to the end of an adaptation is where the focus should have always been. The problem is it will never get there because evolutionists want to conflate and contradict all forms of theistic reason starting with the most fundamental persupposition of God's natural revelation, creation itself.

I would ask only one other thing, if you do not believe in creation in any form, ( aka atheist) please refrain from this discussion. As I said this is not a scientific discussion, but a theological one. Thank you.

Without so much as a glance at the responses this brought on I can tell you this. In order to be a Christian you must believe in God as Creator. What you will get from professing Christians who do not believe in Creationism is a categorical rejection of what Darwin called miraculous interpolation.

Theistic evolutionists fail realize this and it's hard to understand why.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[samaus12345]

First, and probably most common is that they've gone through our wonderful liberal indoctrination camp, public school.

lol yes agreed very very effective.

Got an answer for that one. How many living creatures on the Ark, how long ago was that, how many living creatures alive today that are their direct descendants? That is macroevolution no matter how loosely you define it

Noahs ark is the best prediction of speciation there is. Entirety of land dwelling animal population on the planet in one place at one time all released. Genetic drift, low predation, small population sizes=speciation. There may be kazillions of "species" but how many original created "kinds"? Perhaps only double digits. I dont know. It would be an interesting research endeavour. Some evolutionary biology sites (like talk origins) refer to speciation as Macro-evolution. Ok. Call it mega hyper turbo super fiendishly insane evolution it still isnt going to change one "kind" of animal into another (fish to land dwelling, land dwelling to bird, or bacteria to human being). A mutation which adds a functional protein has never been observed. Conservation of energy says its impossible. There is a 3 part documentary on youtube called "From a frog to a prince". Its from AIG. It covers the topic. It features that classic interview with Richard Dawkins where he fails to account for new genetic information.

Also if one wants to see how a theistic evolutionist goes against a genesis believer type in "John Mackay John Polkinghorne" on youtube.

 

[NGC 6712]

I dont know.

Yep, that about sums it up.

Conservation of energy says its impossible.

When you use terms like these do you know what they even mean? Or do you just like the sound of them thinking they are "scientific"?

 

[samaus12345]

NCBI free full article literature database. Gene duplication/neofunctionalisation is the alleged/delusional mechanism behind prokaryote to human being "evolution". Direct link an article and let the fail begin.

 

[NGC 6712]

NCBI free full article literature database. Gene duplication/neofunctionalisation is the alleged/delusional mechanism behind prokaryote to human being "evolution". Direct link an article and let the fail begin.

Why not write down an applicable form for the conservation of energy and then show me mathematically why it prevents protein changes or some such thing. Don't waffle - DO !!!!!

 

[someguy14]

Young Earth Creation as opposed to Old Earth Creation (aka evolution lite)

Let God be true, but every man a liar.

 

[samaus12345]

I need someone to of their own accord find an article and direct link it. I cant "prove" something is impossible. Thats impossible. If its against every observed law of nature in documented history (gravity going upwards say) then its said to be scientifically impossible. Evolutionsists would instantly dismiss a "perpetual" motion machine and yet hold strong to the delusion/hypothesis that a prokaryote gained new functional genetic information/protein coding to "evolve" it into a human being.

 

[renewed21]

In my opinion, there are only three reasons why a bible believing Christian would believe in macro-evolution.

1) First, and probably most common is that they've gone through our wonderful liberal indoctrination camp, public school. Yes, public school where we send our children to learn that there is no God, and we're all animals related to worms.

2) Secondly, it may be that in an effort not to offend, or perhaps to insulate themselves from ridicule they've thrown their lot in with the evolutionists, compromising a perfectly good bible with an absurd theory to keep from being attacked for their faith.

3) And third, and most disheartening, a total lack of faith in God. They believe the same creator who created the earth, moon, and stars, the universe, the heavens and all that in them is, the seas and all that in them is, had to use a mechanism by which death would bring forth man, and in so doing make Himself into a liar. He states in Genesis, that by sin, man brought death into the world.

.

I disprove your thesis. Thanks, good topic.

 

[NGC 6712]

I need someone to of their own accord find an article and direct link it. I cant "prove" something is impossible. Thats impossible. If its against every observed law of nature in documented history (gravity going upwards say) then its said to be scientifically impossible. Evolutionsists would instantly dismiss a "perpetual" motion machine and yet hold strong to the delusion/hypothesis that a prokaryote gained new functional genetic information/protein coding to "evolve" it into a human being.

You made a specific statement involving the conservation of energy. This can be stated mathematically as:

dQ = dU + dW

where dQ is the energy added to the system, dU is the change in internal energy of the system and dW is the energy lost by the system.

So, show me starting from that and following the deductive logic system of mathematics why changes to a protein via mutation of a gene are impossible.

 

[samaus12345]

We are speculating about something that has never been observed. Shall i propose a mechanism for gravity working in reverse? We cant talk of the laws governing something until said effect has been observed. It hurts my head to even talk about because its silly. But...sigh... i guess it would be 0+0=1. Its dumb that i even mentioned that. Again i need someone to of their own accord find an article and link it.

 

[NGC 6712]

You made a specific statement saying something was impossible due to conservation of energy. Thus you must be able to show this or it is just waffle.

Here's what I am willing to wager on. You made some off the cuff comment and then thought to make it sound scientific by throwing in the conservation of energy phrase without knowing anything about what you speak.

There is nothing forbidden about mutation of DNA and the possible change in a protein by the conservation of energy - which is why I would love to see you try.

 

[samaus12345]

0+0 does not =1. This is conservation of energy (not restricted to thermodynamics or whatever) 0+0=1 would be something for free. This is not our universe. Again i need someone to of their own accord find an article and link it. Thank you for your time.