Creationism (doctrine and teaching)

[metherion]

I usually have a lot more to talk about, but I know exactly the response I’m going to get, so I’m going to narrow it down to 2 things.

Creationism is God acting in time and space, creating living creatures fully formed by divine fiat, as described in precise detail in Genesis 1.

Mm hmm. So, acting in time and space, all creatures fully formed, in ‘kinds’, and as described in precise detail (which I assume also includes the absolute timeframe and relative order) as found in Genesis 1. And you have repeatedly and specifically said one can ONLY be a Christian if one is a Creationist, which requires belief in Creationism.

So, if it wasn’t done in exactly 6 days, it isn’t creationism, and you can’t be Christian if you don’t accept it being done in exactly 6 days? There had to be nothing in the entirety of the universe but a water covered oblate spheroid, and then within no more than (edit: math error, had a number from later in the post in my head) 124 hours there was everything, or one cannot be a Christian?
If it wasn’t done in the exact order presented in Genesis 1, complete with the Sun being formed after the earth, and the Sun being formed after plants, then it isn’t creationism, and you can’t be Christian if you don’t accept that the Sun was formed three days after God started working on the Earth?
If one accepts that plants came after the sun, one cannot be a Christian?
If one accepts land animals came before birds, one cannot be a Christian?
If one accepts that the moon came into being greater than 24 hours after the Sun, instead of within 24 hours of the Sun, one cannot be a Christian?




Second, I’m acutally pretty sure Charles Darwin defined natural selection in this way, at the beginning of chapter four:

How will the struggle for existence, discussed too briefly in the last chapter, act in regard to variation? Can the principle of selection, which we have seen is so potent in the hands of man, apply in nature? I think we shall see that it can act most effectually. Let it be borne in mind in what an endless number of strange peculiarities our domestic productions, and, in a lesser degree, those under nature, vary; and how strong the hereditary tendency is. Under domestication, it may be truly said that the, whole organisation becomes in some degree plastic. Let it be borne in mind how infinitely complex and close-fitting are the mutual relations of all organic beings to each other and to their physical conditions of life. Can it, then, be thought improbable, seeing that variations useful to man have undoubtedly occurred, that other variations useful in some way to each being in the great and complex battle of life, should sometimes occur in the course of thousands of generations? If such do occur, can we doubt (remembering that many more individuals are born than can possibly survive) that individuals having any advantage, however slight, over others, would have the best chance of surviving and of procreating their kind? On the other hand, we may feel sure that any variation in the least degree injurious would be rigidly destroyed. This preservation of favourable variations and the rejection of injurious variations, I call Natural Selection.

Yeah, I’m pretty sure it’s just blowing smoke to take Darwin’s mention of Lamarck’s idea that would turn into methodological naturalism and claim it as enforcing metaphysical atheistic materialism. That is NOT Darwin’s definition of natural selection.

By the way, your posts drip with so much venom it’s just about ready to leak through my computer screen.

Metherion

 

[jilfe]

Hi,

In order for a person to have a theistic evolutionary mindset, and still be a Holy Spirit filled Christian, there needs to be the acceptance that Human decent Started from Adam and Eve, in the time frame recorded in the Biblical account.

Lk:3:23: And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,;;;;;;;;; Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

Mt:1:17: So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations.

Otherwise if that person cannot recieve that, then they do not have the Holy Spirit, they are as the Bible records carnal Christians.

1Cor:3:1: And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ.

As is recorded it doesn't negate them from being a Christian, they are just a babe in Christ when it comes to very deep spiritual issues.

Because the Holy Spirit speaks out against Human evolution,

Gen:1:26: And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness

How can any Holy Spirit filled Christian reconcile that scripture verse with human evolutionary mindset, we can't, we now have the mind of Christ,

1Cor:2:16: For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.

So in conclusion we are not saying that a person who is not a creationist is not a Christian, we are simply putting forth the Biblical record, to show that all Holy Spirit filled Christians are creationists in the belief,
of Human decent from Adam and Eve, in the biblical timeframe

because the Bible speaks this truth about human origins throughout the scriptures:

Rom:15:4: For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.

2Tm:3:16: All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:









,,,

 

[crawfish]

Mark, sometimes the pure definitions and the political ones differ. I am unabashedly a creationist; I believe fully that God created all things and is active in creation. I absolutely hold to the existence of an intelligent designer - all things that exist are intentional and purposeful creations of God.

However, since I accept evolution i am not viewed as a "creationist" by many more traditional creationists. I am excluded from the ID movement because I do not accept that God's hand in creation is testable and repeatable. I'm not the one who denies I am a creationist; I'm not allowed in the club.

 

[mark kennedy]

ISo, acting in time and space, all creatures fully formed, in ‘kinds’, and as described in precise detail (which I assume also includes the absolute timeframe and relative order) as found in Genesis 1. And you have repeatedly and specifically said one can ONLY be a Christian if one is a Creationist, which requires belief in Creationism.

So whats the alternative, never accepting God as cause of anything going all the way back to the Big Bang? Does God ever get credit for anything because it would seem it's not even permissible to affirm God as the designer much less having an active part in it.

Yes, you must be a Creationist in order to be a Christian and there is a very good reason why the Nicene Creed, Hebrews 1:1 and John 1:1 put this before anything else. Paul makes this statement after saying that he is not ashamed of the Gospel because it's the power of God unto salvation?

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Romans 1:18,19)​

Creation is inextricably linked to salvation, don't pretend you don't know what I'm talking about. The question of how many days or even the reliability of Scripture doesn't even come up in these conversations because the Scriptures are reduced to whatever you want them to mean in this day and age.

What do you believe and Creation? Don't tell me what I think or where I'm wrong, your making the profession so where is the confession?

So, if it wasn’t done in exactly 6 days, it isn’t creationism, and you can’t be Christian if you don’t accept it being done in exactly 6 days? There had to be nothing in the entirety of the universe but a water covered oblate spheroid, and then within no more than (edit: math error, had a number from later in the post in my head) 124 hours there was everything, or one cannot be a Christian?

The correct interpretation of Genesis 1 is that Creation week was over the space of 6 days. Certain scholars have disputed this and otherwise marginalized it because it's not the primary issue here. The issue is the power of God being exercised in the Creation of life and the regeneration of believers through the new birth, which is also a special creation.

I think you know that, I think you are having a hard time coming to terms with it.

If it wasn’t done in the exact order presented in Genesis 1, complete with the Sun being formed after the earth, and the Sun being formed after plants, then it isn’t creationism, and you can’t be Christian if you don’t accept that the Sun was formed three days after God started working on the Earth?
If one accepts that plants came after the sun, one cannot be a Christian?
If one accepts land animals came before birds, one cannot be a Christian?
If one accepts that the moon came into being greater than 24 hours after the Sun, instead of within 24 hours of the Sun, one cannot be a Christian?

As I have said many times, the sun, earth and stars were created in Genesis 1:1. It would be during Creation week that the light of the sun and stars would reach the surface of the earth. The narrative is from the surface of the earth and it's readily understood with minimal effort. What you are doing sounds more like modern skepticism then a sound exposition. What about the rest of Creation, the birth of Isaac, Israel only exists as the result of a miracle and miracles have always accompanied the testimony of Scripture.

Second, I’m acutally pretty sure Charles Darwin defined natural selection in this way, at the beginning of chapter four:

Two things to consider here, one thing, that is essential Darwinism, is universal common descent:

Can it, then, be thought improbable, seeing that variations useful to man have undoubtedly occurred, that other variations useful in some way to each being in the great and complex battle of life, should sometimes occur in the course of thousands of generations?​

Many thousands of generations, aka gradualism, and this unbroken line of descent rejects an inference of miraculous interpolation in the preface. Darwin's theory is really just one long argument against special creation, something he made abundantly clear.

This preservation of favourable variations and the rejection of injurious variations, I call Natural Selection.

Which is an effect without a cause, always has been, always will be.

Yeah, I’m pretty sure it’s just blowing smoke to take Darwin’s mention of Lamarck’s idea that would turn into methodological naturalism and claim it as enforcing metaphysical atheistic materialism. That is NOT Darwin’s definition of natural selection.

Call it what you will, the a priori assumption of universal common descent is the explanation of choice for those who will not even consider God as the direct cause of anything, especially life. My interest here is twofold, on the one hand it's doctrinal but there is no argument about the simple fact that you must be a Creationist in order to be a Christian. The second one is scientific and nothing about Darwinism is subject to the normative rules of demonstration required for scientific proof. There is a reason for that, the same reason that none of the writers of Scripture argue for the existence of God. That particular belief is made before the evidence is considered and in our natural state we reject God's revelation and suppress the truth of God in unrighteousness.

By the way, your posts drip with so much venom it’s just about ready to leak through my computer screen.

Theistic evolution continually make scathing attacks on Creationists in this and other forums. Not one of you have made so much as a meager effort to extend the right hand of fellowship to Creationists, instead, you get along famously with some of our most venomous skeptics.

You must be a Creationist in order to be a Christian, doctrinally this fact of Christian theism. Why you choose to attack creationists on a constant basis is something I have never approved of and it has offended a lot of Creationists on here. They don't post and they are unanimous that the reason they don't is the venom that Theistic Evolutionists spit out immediately and constantly.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[KimberlyAA]

I'm also a young-earth creationist. I believe that scientific evidence backs it up biologically, geologically, astronomically & historically.

 

[metherion]

I’m curious as to a supposed contradiction I see in your definition and a previous response, Mark. I was hoping you could clear it up for me.

Earlier, Papias said:

OK, then do you agree that one who believes that God created by using evolution over billions of years, consistent with the scientific evidence, can be a saved Christian? A simple yes or no will suffice.

To which, you repsonded

Of course. You can belief what you like about that, it makes no difference to me. With one condition, you cannot reject God acting in time and space by divine fiat.

Now, with your definition for Creationism,

Creationism is God acting in time and space, creating living creatures fully formed by divine fiat, as described in precise detail in Genesis 1.

I was wondering how you can make that response. If one believes God created using evolution over billions of years, then that means birds and land animals evolved, no? I mean, that’s what the scientific evidence said. However, you definition says living creatures were created fully formed, by divine fiat, as described in precise detail in Genesis 1. Among the types of creatures described as being created in their kinds are birds and land animals. However, the evidence shows birds evolved from reptiles, and land animals evolved from sea creatures. This means that accepting evolution, over billions of years distinctly contradicts God forming all land animals and birds in the precise details in Genesis 1. How do you resolve this?

The correct interpretation of Genesis 1 is that Creation week was over the space of 6 days. Certain scholars have disputed this and otherwise marginalized it because it's not the primary issue here.

Except is it the primary issue. You made every single, precise detail the issue back here:

Creationism is God acting in time and space, creating living creatures fully formed by divine fiat, as described in precise detail in Genesis 1.

AS DESCRIBED IN PRECISE DETAIL.

If someone doesn’t believe the precise details, they don’t believe creationism. Your words. So, you have just made everyone who believes in day-age, gap, et cetera non-Christians, because they don’t believe God’s actions in time and space as described in the precise detail of Genesis 1, because they disagree with the timeframe.

Nice to know.

Unless you meant creationism is God acting in time and space, forming things by divine fiat, ONLY when dealing with creating living creatures. Stars, planets, the rest of the universe, doesn’t matter, those things don’t have to be by divine fiat, only living creatures. That’s the other way the grammar of the statement might be understood. Of course, I rather doubt you mean one can be a creationist and flatly deny that God created the heavens and the earth, but that’s what the grammar could be saying. Either that, or my above paragraph.

As I have said many times, the sun, earth and stars were created in Genesis 1:1.

Then you don’t believe in the precise details. The fourth day very specifically states:

And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15[bless and do not curse]and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16[bless and do not curse]God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17[bless and do not curse]God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18[bless and do not curse]to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19[bless and do not curse]And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

God made the Sun on the fourth day. God made the stars on the fourth day. God made the moon on the fourth day. God didn’t make then in Genesis 1 and let their light shine on the fourth day, he made them on the fourth day. Right there in verse 16. On the fourth day, God made the sun, made the moon, and made the stars.
So, the precise details in Genesis 1:14-19 don’t matter, either. Either that or you yourself aren’t a creationist. After all, you’re not accepting God acting in time and space by divine fiat as declared in the precise details of Genesis 1.


Also, question, what about Genesis 2?

Which is an effect without a cause without an effect, always has been, always will be.

Well, you know, if you ignore all the physical evidence and explanations that have been put forth both in the book and in the century and a half since.

Theistic evolution continually make scathing attacks on Creationists in this and other forums. Not one of you have made so much as a meager effort to extend the right hand of fellowship to Creationists, instead, you get along famously with some of our most venomous skeptics.

Mm hmm. Need I remind you of the post I made in a thread a while back where I posted nothing but quotes of your attacks and hit the 15000 character limit? Would you like me to go through the posts of Papias in just this thread and link to you every single time he shows your statement

<edit>

The precise details of when God made things don&#8217;t matter, the precise details of how long it took aren&#8217;t the point... so which precise details ARE the ones that matter? Which details ARE the point?

Metherion

 

[mark kennedy]

Hi,

In order for a person to have a theistic evolutionary mindset, and still be a Holy Spirit filled Christian, there needs to be the acceptance that Human decent Started from Adam and Eve, in the time frame recorded in the Biblical account.

Lk:3:23: And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli, Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

Mt:1:17: So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations.

Otherwise if that person cannot recieve that, then they do not have the Holy Spirit, they are as the Bible records carnal Christians.

I think the Scriptures are clear that human lineage began with Adam. How you are supposed to reconcile this with Darwinian evolution remains a mystery to me. Not because it can't be done but because none of the evolutionists I am acquainted with even try.

When you read Genesis 1:1 you are seeing the end from the beginning:

Now I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away. Also there was no more sea. (Rev 21:1)​

The original creation, resurrection, regeneration and the new creation are all essential Christian theism.

1Cor:3:1: And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ.

As is recorded it doesn't negate them from being a Christian, they are just a babe in Christ when it comes to very deep spiritual issues.

Actually, this is the verse that comes to my mind:

Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Whoever therefore wants to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God. (James 4:4)​

Because the Holy Spirit speaks out against Human evolution,

Gen:1:26: And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness

First of all evolution as properly defined scientifically is not opposed to creation. Darwinian evolution rejects any hint of creation or design but evolution itself is neutral. Evolution is something that living things do, it's a living theory. Once creation is complete in all it's vast array normal adaptive evolution starts to span out across the earth, humans included.

What they would have you believe is that science and evolution is opposed to the testimony of Scripture, it's just no true. Our problem is not with evolution, the problem is with the assumption that all of life occurred as a result of natural laws rather then as an act of God.

How can any Holy Spirit filled Christian reconcile that scripture verse with human evolutionary mindset, we can't, we now have the mind of Christ,

I could do it without disturbing any essential doctrine, if I were convinced that Darwinians had made their case I would. That's not going to pacify them, you have to make the a priori (without prior) assumption of universal common descent by exclusively naturalistic means. If you don't make that assumption then you are automatically assumed to be ignorant.

You can put on the mind of Christ and still hold to evolutionary theory. The fact is that you need not swallow the entire assumption in one gulp or reject it entirely.

1Cor:2:16: For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.

So in conclusion we are not saying that a person who is not a creationist is not a Christian, we are simply putting forth the Biblical record, to show that all Holy Spirit filled Christians are creationists in the belief,
of Human decent from Adam and Eve, in the biblical timeframe

What I'm saying is that you must be a Creationist in order to be a Christian. I don't especially care what you believe about whether or not the 24 hour days in Genesis 1 are 24 hour days. The only real doctrinal issue with Adam and Eve is original sin and aside from the Biblical record there is no explanation for why we are all sinners.

because the Bible speaks this truth about human origins throughout the scriptures:

Rom:15:4: For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.

2Tm:3:16: All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

As far as I'm concerned you can believe Adam had ancestors, you'd be wrong, but I don't really have a problem with it. What is more important is why you believe Adam had ancestors. If you are convinced that Darwinism has made it's case I have no problem. If your doing it to compromise your religion with natural science you undermining the integrity of both.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[miamited]

Wow, I'm absolutely amazed that the young earth creationist model is still holding such a high number of adherents here.

God bless you all.
In Christ, Ted

 

[jilfe]

What is more important is why you believe Adam had ancestors. If you are convinced that Darwinism has made it's case I have no problem. If your doing it to compromise your religion with natural science you undermining the integrity of both.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Hi, Mark,

I don't believe that Adam had ancestors, I believe according to how it is written in the Biblical record, that all Human origin, came from Adam and Eve, in the time frame recorded in the Biblical record.

I don't understand your comments towards my posts, it seems like you think I'm trying to take some darwinism stand or something, I never read any of the boloney thats out there about darwin, or even about the stupidity out there about evolutionary science.
Because I know its all a bunch of Human reasoning, (baloney) which will always fail, when not taken with Scripture as the foundation for scientific discoveries.

If the science community, takes away any validity of the Biblical record, I imediately disregard the baloney they come up with and turn the channel on the T.V.

So I do Believe the Creation account as recorded in the Biblical record, that all Human origin came from Adam, and Eve, in the Biblical recorded time.

Thankyou God Bless.

 

[mark kennedy]

Now, with your definition for Creationism,

Creationism is God acting in time and space, creating living creatures fully formed by divine fiat, as described in precise detail in Genesis 1.

I was wondering how you can make that response. If one believes God created using evolution over billions of years, then that means birds and land animals evolved, no? I mean, that&#8217;s what the scientific evidence said. However, you definition says living creatures were created fully formed, by divine fiat, as described in precise detail in Genesis 1. Among the types of creatures described as being created in their kinds are birds and land animals. However, the evidence shows birds evolved from reptiles, and land animals evolved from sea creatures. This means that accepting evolution, over billions of years distinctly contradicts God forming all land animals and birds in the precise details in Genesis 1. How do you resolve this?

I have long been skeptical of homology arguments as I'm sure you are well aware. I actually pursued this one for a while and I didn't find anything conclusive in the evidence, on the contrary, I found meager support for dinosaurs evolving into birds. It would require more then sprouting feathers, major changes in metabolism and organs are required and not only has the case not been made, it's never been attempted. It's been a while but I kept a couple of the papers I found especially interesting. I'll give it a once over in case your interested in pursuing this:

The origin of birds and avian flight from within the archosaurian radiation has been among the most contentious issues in paleobiology. Although there is general agreement that birds are related to theropod dinosaurs at some level, debate centers on whether birds are derived directly from highly derived theropods, the current dogma, or from an earlier common ancestor lacking suites of derived anatomical characters. Recent discoveries from the Early Cretaceous of China have highlighted the debate, with claims of the discovery of all stages of feather evolution and ancestral birds (theropod dinosaurs), although the deposits are at least 25 million years younger than those containing the earliest known bird Archaeopteryx. Do feathered dinosaurs exist? Testing the hypothesis on neontological and paleontological evidence.​

What actually interested me wasn't so much the detailed arguments but I stay interested in the subject matter because of things like this:

Thus, the presence in life of only a single aortic trunk cannot be substantiated. Significantly, the left side of the specimen (where the &#8220;missing&#8221; aortic trunk would most likely have been) is absent from the fossil. Finally, it remains unclear if the specimen is actually a fossilized heart or merely an artifact. Respiratory and Reproductive Paleophysiology of Dinosaurs and Early Birds​

I was actually involved in a debate that has since been lost in the stacks when I found this. I remember thinking, not that the evidence was so interesting but that a fossilized heart was found in a 150 million year old specimen. To this day that is one of the all time head twisters I have encountered in paleontology.

I thought you might find this interesting

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QVXdEOiCw8

Now this one. Trust me when I tell you if it was anyone else I wouldn't do this but I believe you are honestly curious. Here goes:

Except is it the primary issue. You made every single, precise detail the issue back here:

The correct interpretation of Genesis 1 is that Creation week was over the space of 6 days. Certain scholars have disputed this and otherwise marginalized it because it's not the primary issue here.

Except is it the primary issue. You made every single, precise detail the issue back here:

Creationism is God acting in time and space, creating living creatures fully formed by divine fiat, as described in precise detail in Genesis 1.

AS DESCRIBED IN PRECISE DETAIL.

When I say 'precise detail' I'm not really making the 24 hour day a salvation issue. I think the language is clear that the 'day' in Genesis 1 is explicitly describing a normal 24 hour day but if you want to take that one figuratively I not going to anathematize you for it.

If someone doesn&#8217;t believe the precise details, they don&#8217;t believe creationism. Your words. So, you have just made everyone who believes in day-age, gap, et cetera non-Christians, because they don&#8217;t believe God&#8217;s actions in time and space as described in the precise detail of Genesis 1, because they disagree with the timeframe.

I really don't think if that was all there was to it we would have much to debate. It's the transcendent nature of Darwinian thought that has convinced me that no compromise is possible. Not because I say so but because of the way Darwinians describe it:

&#8220;it eats through just about every traditional concept, and leaves in its wake a revolutionized world-view, with most of the old landmarks still recognizable, but transformed in fundamental ways.&#8221; (Darwin's Dangerous Idea, Daniel Dennett)​

I've actually read a lot of Darwinian thought, Dennet, Dawkins and of course, 'ole flycather' himself. I see nothing benign in this philosophy that can only be described as transcendent:

Origins of man now proved, metaphysics must floursih, He who understand baboon would do more towards metaphysics than Locke. (Charles Darwin)​

Creation is transcendent as well, Darwin knew this. The Church has always affirmed God as Creator and that is specifically what Darwinism argues against. Now I see no real problem with being convinced that evolution has made it's case in many respects but it's the sweeping generalities of Darwinian naturalistic assumptions that are mutually exclusive with Christian theism.

Unless you meant creationism is God acting in time and space, forming things by divine fiat, ONLY when dealing with creating living creatures. Stars, planets, the rest of the universe, doesn&#8217;t matter, those things don&#8217;t have to be by divine fiat, only living creatures. That&#8217;s the other way the grammar of the statement might be understood. Of course, I rather doubt you mean one can be a creationist and flatly deny that God created the heavens and the earth, but that&#8217;s what the grammar could be saying. Either that, or my above paragraph.

Don't be silly, of course God made the sun, moon and stars by divine fiat. As I have said repeatedly, the earth was fully formed well before it was suitable for life. What we see in Genesis 1 is a lifeless planet and within the space of six days creation was complete in all it's vast array. Evolution starts at this point and naturalistic causes going back to the Big Bang is not Creationism, it's atheistic materialism.

Then you don&#8217;t believe in the precise details. The fourth day very specifically states: God made the Sun on the fourth day. God made the stars on the fourth day. God made the moon on the fourth day. God didn&#8217;t make then in Genesis 1 and let their light shine on the fourth day, he made them on the fourth day. Right there in verse 16. On the fourth day, God made the sun, made the moon, and made the stars.

So, the precise details in Genesis 1:14-19 don&#8217;t matter, either. Either that or you yourself aren&#8217;t a creationist. After all, you&#8217;re not accepting God acting in time and space by divine fiat as declared in the precise details of Genesis 1.

That's not what it says?

And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. (Genesis 1:14,15)​

Always this narrative should be understood as being from the surface of the earth. God already created the heavens and the earth, here the light is making it to the surface. You have to understand, when I say 'precise' I mean to tell you there are details you don't see on the surface. There is a difference between 'Bara: to shape or create' and 'Asah: to do or make'

Bara

Gen. 1:1 created the heavens and earth
Gen. 1:21 created the sea creatures and birds
Gen. 1:27 created man (both Adam and Eve)​

Asah

Gen. 1:7 made the expanse between the waters above and below
Gen. 1:16 made the sun, moon and stars​

Don't take my word for anything, look it up.

Also, question, what about Genesis 2?

The focus changes from Genesis 1:1 to Creation week and then again when the text expands on the creation of man. It's pretty obvious, to me at any rate, that Genesis 2 is an expansion on the most important act of creation in Creation week, the creation of our first parents.

Well, you know, if you ignore all the physical evidence and explanations that have been put forth both in the book and in the century and a half since.

I don't ignore the evidence, I just reserve the right to remain unconvinced by fallacious false assumptions and arguments of science falsely so called. On the other hand, I have done my homework, I've always favored primary sources in my discussions. That is why I can make my arguments from the scientific literature as well as Scripture. Can you?

<edit>


Have a nice day
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

Hi, Mark,

I don't believe that Adam had ancestors, I believe according to how it is written in the Biblical record, that all Human origin, came from Adam and Eve, in the time frame recorded in the Biblical record.

I don't understand your comments towards my posts, it seems like you think I'm trying to take some darwinism stand or something, I never read any of the boloney thats out there about darwin, or even about the stupidity out there about evolutionary science.
Because I know its all a bunch of Human reasoning, (baloney) which will always fail, when not taken with Scripture as the foundation for scientific discoveries.

If the science community, takes away any validity of the Biblical record, I imediately disregard the baloney they come up with and turn the channel on the T.V.

So I do Believe the Creation account as recorded in the Biblical record, that all Human origin came from Adam, and Eve, in the Biblical recorded time.

Thankyou God Bless.

I debate a lot, sometimes I mistake a Creationist for a Darwinian. In this case I wasn't, when I say 'you' I mean it figuratively. It might interest you to know the reason I am interested in debating these issues so much. I really would like to see a Creationist model built from the evidence of 'evolutionary biology'. Science isn't the problem, neither is evolution. The problem is Darwinian false assumptions that deprecate Christian theism and distorts the benign and beneficial work of the genuine article of science.

I don't want to argue whether or not dinosaurs sprouted feathers and transposed over time into birds, I think it's kind of silly. I don't see a shred of proof that the human brain had the time or the means to have evolved from an ape brain three times smaller. What actually interests me is how arctic wildlife evolved, did you know that the Grizzly and the Polar bear can still interbreed?

One of these days when the smoke has cleared from these silly debates genetics will discover the molecular mechanisms involved. I'm pretty sure it won't be random mutations, it will be highly complex intricately designed products specially created for that purpose.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[miamited]

I debate a lot, sometimes I mistake a Creationist for a Darwinian. In this case I wasn't, when I say 'you' I mean it figuratively. It might interest you to know the reason I am interested in debating these issues so much. I really would like to see a Creationist model built from the evidence of 'evolutionary biology'. Science isn't the problem, neither is evolution. The problem is Darwinian false assumptions that deprecate Christian theism and distorts the benign and beneficial work of the genuine article of science.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Hi Mark,

I don't believe that what you seek is possible. A biblically sound creationist 'model' cannot be made from the 'evidence'? of evolutionary biology. I would just caution you to be careful in what you seek and to please read my post on your other thread.

God bless you.
IN Christ, Ted

 

[mark kennedy]

Hi Mark,

I don't believe that what you seek is possible. A biblically sound creationist 'model' cannot be made from the 'evidence'? of evolutionary biology. I would just caution you to be careful in what you seek and to please read my post on your other thread.

God bless you.
IN Christ, Ted

They never made one from Darwinism, apparently you don't need one. What I'm looking for is a molecular mechanism behind adaptive evolution. Now that Creationism is staying out of the news it's getting a lot easier.

 

[Assyrian]

Always this narrative should be understood as being from the surface of the earth. God already created the heavens and the earth, here the light is making it to the surface. You have to understand, when I say 'precise' I mean to tell you there are details you don't see on the surface. There is a difference between 'Bara: to shape or create' and 'Asah: to do or make'

Bara

Gen. 1:1 created the heavens and earth
Gen. 1:21 created the sea creatures and birds
Gen. 1:27 created man (both Adam and Eve)​

Asah

Gen. 1:7 made the expanse between the waters above and below
Gen. 1:16 made the sun, moon and stars​

Don't take my word for anything, look it up.

Asah is also used for God making man and beasts:

Gen 1:26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness".
Gen 1:25 And God made the beasts of the earth
​

Genesis 2 used the word yatsar formed to describe the creation of man and beasts, Hebrew yatsar: to mould into a form; especially as a potter.
Yatsar

Gen 2:7 then the LORD God formed the man of dust
Gen 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every bird of the air
​

Both birds and beasts as described here as being yatsar formed, but remember in Genesis 1 the birds of the air were bara created while the beasts were asah made.

 

[mark kennedy]

Asah is also used for God making man and beasts:

Gen 1:26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness".
Gen 1:25 And God made the beasts of the earth
​

Genesis 2 used the word yatsar formed to describe the creation of man and beasts, Hebrew yatsar: to mould into a form; especially as a potter.
Yatsar

Gen 2:7 then the LORD God formed the man of dust
Gen 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every bird of the air
​

Both birds and beasts as described here as being yatsar formed, but remember in Genesis 1 the birds of the air were bara created while the beasts were asah made.

They (bara, asah, yatsar) are sometimes used in parallel:

For thus saith the Lord that created (bara)the heavens; God himself that formed (yasar) the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed (asah) it to be inhabited: I am the Lord; and there is none else.(Isaiah 45:18)​

However, both avian and aquatic life was created on the fifth day:

Then God said, &#8220;Let the waters abound with an abundance of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the face of the firmament of the heavens.&#8221; So God created (bara) great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. And God blessed them, saying, &#8220;Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.&#8221; So the evening and the morning were the fifth day. (Gen. 1:20-23)​

Nice try but as usual, your wrong. Just kidding, it's also implied that the grass and trees were created ex nihilo as well, even though bara is not actually used.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[Assyrian]

They (bara, asah, yatsar) are sometimes used in parallel:

For thus saith the Lord that created (bara)the heavens; God himself that formed (yasar) the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed (asah) it to be inhabited: I am the Lord; and there is none else.(Isaiah 45:18)​

However, both avian and aquatic life was created on the fifth day:

Then God said, “Let the waters abound with an abundance of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the face of the firmament of the heavens.” So God created (bara) great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. And God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.” So the evening and the morning were the fifth day. (Gen. 1:20-23)​

Nice try but as usual, your wrong. Just kidding, it's also implied that the grass and trees were created ex nihilo as well, even though bara is not actually used.

Have a nice day
Mark

If the bible uses bara, asah and yatsar in parallel, and as we have seen from Genesis interchangeably, doesn't that suggest that they are different ways to describe the same creative activity? Bara is used to describe the work of God, asah the word used to describe craftsmen describes God as a worker labouring for six days and then resting, while yatsar is that great biblical image of God as a potter moulding man and animals from clay.

I don't see how bara can mean specifically ex nihilo creation when it is used to describe creation from pre-existing material. Man and birds are described as being created bara in Genesis 1, while in Genesis 2 first Adam and after him, birds are moulded yatsar from dust and from the ground, then the woman is built banah from Adam's rib. That is hardly creation from nothing. I don't see an implication of ex nihilo in the creation of plants in Genesis 1 which says that it is the earth that produced the plants.

 

[super animator]

Um, not from what I've read here. Only that it seems TE's vehemently deny and attack the label of creationist even though to be Christian you must acknowledge God as the creator. I may be over simplifying it, but I think that's the basic gist.

No TE is rejecting god as creator. He's implying that you must reject that adam have a common ancestor in order to be christian, which many of us TE accept that adam does have a common ancestor. In which that he continuity implying that we not Turechristian tm base on this.

 

[metherion]

Let&#8217;s go to Exodus 20:11 and Exodus 31:17, where asah is used. What about those?

Exodus 20:11, NIV:
For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

Exodus 31:17, NIV:
It will be a sign between me and the Israelites forever, for in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed.&#8217;&#8221;

I should say that I am rather amused as an aside here. I went and looked up asah vs bara vs yastar, and I keep finding articles from YEC sites that say there is no real difference between asah and bara, and they are used interchangeably. Such examples are:
http://www.creationstudies.org/Education/first_day
and
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v2/n1/did-god-create-or-make

And Mark, you contradict yourself again. I am a theistic evolutionist.

Therefore, when you say

I have never accused you of doing 'nothing but attack me'

and

I said and I still maintain that theistic evolutionists always resort to ad hominem, that is, personal attacks,

That contradicts each other. Either I am ALWYS resorting to ad hominem personal attacks, in which case I do nothing but attack you in every post, or... TEs doesn&#8217;t always resort to ad hominems.

Which is it?

Using your personal definition of Darwinism?

No, the ones Darwinians use.

No, you made up that definition of Darwinism. Let&#8217;s just google it and see what pops up, excluding &#8216;social darwinism&#8217; and the like.

when you put &#8216;Darwinism definition&#8217; into google:
a theory of organic evolution claiming that new species arise and are perpetuated by natural selection.
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

A theory of biological evolution developed by Charles Darwin and others, stating that all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individual's ability to compete, survive, and reproduce. Also called Darwinian theory.
Define Darwinism - definition of Darwinism from American Heritage

A theory of biological evolution developed by Charles Darwin and others, stating that all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individual's ability to compete, survive, and reproduce. Also called Darwinian theory.
Darwinism - definition of Darwinism by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

a theory of the origin and perpetuation of new species of animals and plants that offspring of a given organism vary, that natural selection favors the survival of some of these variations over others, that new species have arisen and may continue to arise by these processes, and that widely divergent groups of plants and animals have arisen from the same ancestors
Darwinism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary


the Darwinian theory that species originate by descent, with variation, from parent forms, through the natural selection of those individuals best adapted for the reproductive success of their kind.

Darwinism | Define Darwinism at Dictionary.com

And of course, we can&#8217;t have Darwinian in a definition for Darwinism, so from that same site...

pertaining to Charles Darwin[bless and do not curse]or his doctrines.

So, let&#8217;s see: We have the American Heritage dictionary, Mirriam-Webster, thefreedictionary.com, dictionary.reference.com (which you are redirected to if you just put dictionary.com into the browser), and Princeton, and none of them have your definition in there. Hm.

Also: Do you REALLY not see just how venomous your responses are? Seriously, when you talk to Papias it&#8217;s hard to read just because you are spewing so much much venom.

Just in your last post, you have claimed that he constantly launches personal attacks at least 5 times, claimed he is arguing in circles at least four, done your standard claim that Papias is only performing for a Darwinian audience, made multiple claims that he doesn&#8217;t even know what he is TALKING about, straight up calling what he is doing trolling, and accused him of equivocating or worse at least another 4 times while SIMULTANEOUSLY attacking him for cutting and pasting definitions, and attacking him for not doing enough to make his definitions work! All the while claiming you don&#8217;t spew venom. Really, Mark? Really?

If your plan to make people not want to discuss things with you by spewing out so much hate and slinging so much mud that anyone who disagrees with you is just buried under false attack claims, you&#8217;re doing a great job.

Why don&#8217;t you go through the last post by Papais, and specifically list every ad hominem attack he has made? Show your point. SHOW that everyone is just making tons and tons of ad hominem attacks without fail. Stop crying wolf, and show all the endless attacks you have been been constantly suffering this entire time. Show that your constant cries of ALL TEs ALWAYS RESORT TO AD HOMINEM ATTACKS, CONSTANTLY isn&#8217;t just beating on the &#8216;made up persecution&#8217; drum.

I'm being serious and I want an answer. If you take out the personal attacks from you responses what is left? Then go back and look at mine because you will find carefully prepared discussions from the scientific literature, the Scriptures along with thoughtful responses to the endless barrages of condescending corrections and indictments on my character.

How about you pull out all the actual attacks and tell us what is left? You are making the claim that TEs always constantly fling venom and make personal attacks. That means the burden of proof is on YOU. You made the claim, you have to back it up by dredging up the attacks and going, "See, I am attacked!" I look forward to your list of posts from every TE poster, from every TE post, that there is an overwhelming abundance of personal attacks going on at all times.

Metherion

 

[Metal Minister]

No TE is rejecting god as creator. He's implying that you must reject that adam have a common ancestor in order to be christian, which many of us TE accept that adam does have a common ancestor. In which that he continuity implying that we not Turechristian tm base on this.

So you believe God had nothing to do with the creation of the universe or anything in it?

 

[super animator]

So you believe God had nothing to do with the creation of the universe or anything in it?

That's deism.