I don't understand the point of creationism

[pitabread]

Genesis begins with, can a person believe God and His communication with His creation.

There seems to be a difference between "believe" and "take literally".

 

[Speedwell]

If God can not (in the Bible) accurately communicate how His creation and living humans came to be.

Was that what He was doing? How do you know? My take on it is that He was telling us why He created us, using contemporaneous phenomenological language for the "how" which is not, in itself, particularly important.

[Staff Edit]

If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me.

Correct. All Christians believe Moses. The question is, do you really understand Moses?

 

[Direct Driver]

That's what we're trying to find out. What's the point of taking Genesis literally?

I agree. And I don't take it literally. Taking it literally regarding anything "scientific" is a sure fire way to guarantee losing any theological debate, in my opinion. If I remember correctly, it says insects are 8 legged, even though anyone alive at the time knew otherwise. The number of legs is not the point.

 

[Direct Driver]

The early Christian church took the Genesis myth of creation, temptation and fall as the basis for the theory of Original Sin. As time went on Original Sin became the basis of so much more theology. To lose Original Sin would be to lose so much more as well. The theory of Evolution is seen as the thin edge of the wedge that challenges this foundational theology. It must be resisted at all costs and the way to do that is to insist upon a completely literal reading. What is odd is that this POV largely originated in the conservative wing of American Protestantism and gained very little traction in the mainstream churches, in Catholicism and in Orthodoxy or outside the USA. And in 3000 years it has never been a Jewish interpretation.

I'm going to sound contradictory here, but here goes: I'm a VERY black and white (binary) thinker and consider it a positive attribute in most ways, especially in my career - computer software. However, for it to work I have to understand that gray areas are only gray because they have not yet been broken down to their "black and white components" - kinda like the gray areas in an old newspaper photo are actually black dots on white paper.

And that is how I see this. There is no way I can take Genesis, as translated into English bibles, literally. Or, more precisely, the interpretations of it. e.g. in Genesis 1:3 we begin and end the first day. But how much time passed in Genesis 1: 1-2? Nobody knows. It doesn't say. So anyone who insists it DOES say is selling something.

And then there is that part about the "pillars of the earth". IBSS - The Bible - Genesis 1:9-13 DAY 3: Pillars of the Earth

Of course, we interpret it now as a "figure of speech". But I have little doubt that the culture contemporaneous with the "publishing' of that verse, saw it literally. It worked with their view of the earth and its relationship with heaven. And at that time, that was good enough. Again, the bible is not a science book.

So, does that leave room for evolution? Not so far. That is a different compartment. And let's face it. Evolution IS real. But it is "de-evolution". And much of what people see as "evolution" is actually "population evolution" The peppered moth is an excellent example of this. The occurrence of particular color patterns changed IN THE POPULATION but not in individual moths. This is also what happened in North America humans. The entire population used to be of Asian ancestry. Then Caucasians moved in and brought Negro slaves. The result? The population evolved. But individual people did not evolve.

And if we suddenly passed a law requiring Caucasians to be sterilized at birth, our population would "evolve" again. But no "evolution" took place.

So I'm happy to listen to evolutionists, but until the hypothesis can be turned into a disprovable theory, I don't take it seriously. And I can hold that position while, at the same time, not take Genesis literally, at least as many do. I don't know how God created everything. The only specific is the part about the rib and "from the earth". And even the latter there can mean all sorts of things.

I avoid getting wrapped around the axle about it. Now, we see as through a glass darkly, but then, face to face. We can study. We can learn. We can come up with all sorts of hypotheses. But we won't KNOW until He's good and ready to share. What matters is that he is our father, He loves us, and we are saved from ourselves thanks to His sacrifice. We can go forward blameless. And the human interactions and events chronicled in both the old and new testaments amplify this.

 

[pitabread]

Evolution IS real. But it is "de-evolution". And much of what people see as "evolution" is actually "population evolution" The peppered moth is an excellent example of this. The occurrence of particular color patterns changed IN THE POPULATION but not in individual moths. This is also what happened in North America humans. The entire population used to be of Asian ancestry. Then Caucasians moved in and brought Negro slaves. The result? The population evolved. But individual people did not evolve.

Evolution is simply the change in populations over time. So you're correct in the fact that individuals don't evolve; populations evolve.

But there is no such thing as "de-evolution". It's just change over time which is precisely what evolution is.

 

[Direct Driver]

Evolution is simply the change in populations over time. So you're correct in the fact that individuals don't evolve; populations evolve.

But there is no such thing as "de-evolution". It's just change over time which is precisely what evolution is.

Yes. But my point is that you don't get a superior life form from an inferior one. At least, there is no testable theory that that could happen. And it's not like we haven't tried.
No Fruit Fly Evolution Even after 600 Generations

I used to argue this evolution stuff in earnest back in the 80's. I now consider it pretty much an exercise in futility - like arguing politics. Nobody was there. There are no testable theories - only hypotheses. So I leave it to those that have more motivation to argue it. For all I know, in the real world (life after my brief time in this meat animal "tent" expires), I may learn that God used LOTS of evolution, NO evolution, or something in between. It's really not important to me.

I have a personal relationship with Him and understand His personality more every day. I know He created me. I trust his promises. And I leave it at that. And the more I know, the stronger is my perspective on all of that. I will add this, though: If most lay-people in the Christian community understood the actual origins of the Pentateuch, and the cultures on the world from which it came, they would probably spend less time in these types of arguments. Nobody really knows, nor will ever know, exactly how God created us. It's sufficient for me to know that He did. The bible is not a science book, nor does it claim to be. It's not trying to explain HOW God did it. It's a fools errand to look there for those answers, just like it's a fool's errand to look at an algebra book to find the meaning behind Shakespeare's plays and sonnets. And vice versa.

 

[pitabread]

Yes. But my point is that you don't get a superior life form from an inferior one. At least, there is no testable theory that that could happen. And it's not like we haven't tried.

There no real definition of "superior" or "inferior" in the context of biological evolution. It's simply about changes over time.

That said, we do how evolution can and does produce increasing complexity (insofar as increase in dependency on protein functions), novel protein function, multicellularity, etc.

There are no testable theories - only hypotheses.

Hypotheses regarding evolution are testable in the same other hypotheses in science as tested; formulate a hypothesis, make predictions if the hypothesis were true, then gather observations and/or conduct experiments and see if the outcomes match the predictions.

For all I know, in the real world (life after my brief time in this meat animal "tent" expires), I may learn that God used LOTS of evolution, NO evolution, or something in between. It's really not important to me.

Fair enough.

 

[BobRyan]

Based on a couple decades of conversing with creationists and more broadly Christians in general, I've come away with two basic conclusions re: creationism:

1) It's not required for salvation by Jesus Christ.

2) It's not derived on the basis of God's Creation.​

I don't otherwise see the point of adopting creationist beliefs.

A. For creationist - Bible details matter

B. For creationists - rocks don't "pop out" eukaryotes over time... much less horses ... no matter how much time you give the rocks.

C. For creationists - John 1 and Genesis 1 are linked by their first 3 verses

===============================

So then I have a question. "How is that not incredibly obvious"??

 

[Speedwell]

A. For creationist - Bible details matter

Bible details matter for all Christians, not just creationists.

B. For creationists - rocks don't "pop out" eukaryotes over time... much less horses ... no matter how much time you give the rocks.

No, for creationists, rocks popped out eukaryotes--along with everything else--pretty much as it is now--over 6 days, 6000 years ago.

C. For creationists - John 1 and Genesis 1 are linked by their first 3 verses

Only in proclaiming God as author of our being. Other than that they have nothing in common.

 

[d taylor]

There seems to be a difference between "believe" and "take literally".

Maybe for you. My belief gives me the trust that God communicated a literal accurate account of His act in creating His creation.

It also shows me that it did not take six days, millions of years, etc to create His creation. As Genesis 1:1 states, In the beginning God created the heavens and earth.

 

[Speedwell]

Maybe for you. My belief gives me the trust that God communicated a literal accurate account of His act in creating His creation.

Why? That's the OP question, really. Why insist on it?

 

[Speedwell]

I do not follow churches or their teachings, especially in areas of creation. I can see Gods creation witness in the sun, moon, stars they give enough of an accurate witness, that i know the Bible is a true literal witness to Gods creation. Strong enough so areas that i can not witness i need not to doubt they will follow in suit to be truthful.

If you feel you need help in that area and want to follow a churches teaching.

No thanks. The Gospel of Christ is the foundation of my faith, not a literal Genesis. [Staff Edit]

 

[pitabread]

I can see Gods creation witness in the sun, moon, stars they give enough of an accurate witness,

Do you believe the solar system is ~4.6 billion years old or that the universe is ~13 billion years old?

That's what the Sun, Moon and stars reveal.

 

[d taylor]

Do you believe the solar system is ~4.6 billion years old or that the universe is ~13 billion years old?

That's what the Sun, Moon and stars reveal.

Thats what you have been told they reveal, by some scientist, so you believe them.

 

[Speedwell]

Thats what you have been told they reveal, by some scientist, so you believe them.

No, I just take it as the best scientific conclusion to date, pending new evidence. I have no reason not to. It's not as if science was claiming absolute truth.

 

[pitabread]

Thats what you have been told they reveal, by some scientist, so you believe them.

I have no reason not to.

 

[BobRyan]

Do you believe the solar system is ~4.6 billion years old or that the universe is ~13 billion years old?

That's what the Sun, Moon and stars reveal.

Massive inference and guessing... not some sort of fact that the Sun has stated not even a record of it in nature. Rather "inference" by extrapolating back without anything to confirm the inference but more "inference".

 

[BobRyan]

Massive inference and guessing... not some sort of fact that the Sun has stated not even a record of it in nature. Rather "inference" by extrapolating back without anything to confirm the inference but more "inference".

The circular argument "solution" works out like this --

God creates man on day 6 in Genesis 1. Atheist sees that the man is an adult and so "extrapolates back" with some level of inference based on the circular assumption that god-does-not-exist - and concludes that the mas was born 25 years earlier - but the mother of that person has not yet been "discovered" and no other humans exist on planet earth at this point.

Then claims that the inference alone disproves the statement that God created Adam yesterday.

 

[BobRyan]

Bible details matter for all Christians, not just creationists.

I would like to think so.

 

[BobRyan]

A. For creationist - Bible details matter

B. For creationists - rocks don't "pop out" eukaryotes over time... much less horses ... no matter how much time you give the rocks.

C. For creationists - John 1 and Genesis 1 are linked by their first 3 verses

===============================

So then I have a question. "How is that not incredibly obvious"??

No, for creationists, rocks popped out eukaryotes

I don't know of any creationist who teaches that.

All the creationists I know say "19 And out of the ground the Lord God formed every animal of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name." Gen 2:19

Now if when you see them make that claim you substitute in the term "rock" where you see them say "God" -- then you might have walked away with that idea that "rocks did it not God"...

Are you saying that is what you did??

Because I would not have guessed that you would do that. What exactly are you saying??