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

depthdeception said:

What specific elements of this idea is it that appeals most aestetically?

Click to expand...

I don't think that I could properly get that across, not just on a message board but even face to face. It's like asking why a man thinks one particular woman is attractive yet another man might think she's repulsive ... you can use all kinds of words to describe either opinion but beauty is just too subjective to translate for others. If you understand what I mean, lol. For me, the YEC view just represents a more majestic and appealing method than the others.

Sabertooth said:

Organic maturity did not require age. Inorganic material does not mature. Comparing the two is a bit a bit unfounded.

Click to expand...

Inorganic material does indeed mature. Stars don't just suddenly wink into being. They begin as an accumulation of gases and pass through fairly definitive life stages until they eventually collapse and explode. I'm not speaking of maturity in the sense of a childs "whaa, I want it it's mine" to an adults "sure, you can use my stuff", but rather maturity in the sense of a point in the growth/life/stages of an object.

Sabertooth}[size=2 said:

Further, if these were ages, instead of days, either the plants would have broken the soil or you would have some pretty hungry herbivores...!

Click to expand...

Sigh, people and their relentless logic I'm not claiming to be logical with this, not one single tiny bit. If some part doesn't make sense then it doesn't make sense, no biggie.

Why are people so wrapped up in proving it one way or the other? My point is, it doesn't matter. God created everything, that's truth. How he did that is really irrelevant (for me, at least). I just appreciate the beauty in the Genesis account and prefer to think of it that way.

Anyway, all I've presented is a viewpoint. It is one based strictly on a poetic and aesthetic preference. Whatever works for you is good too
[/size]

I'm #6 with intelligent design...

Speaking of #6, I must say I do see Biblical evidence for [a guided?] micro-evolution, even while holding to YEC.

If our understanding is correct that the serpent became the first [and only] limbless reptile [see Gen 3:14], it would follow that he is the common ancestor of ALL of our present-day snakes, a radical example of micro-evolution at work. This would infer that the same diversification process could have happened to other animals, as well, though there is no direct Biblical evidence to support this.

Also, that would show how [Adam] could have named ALL the animals in one "afternoon."

Genesis 2:19-22 says, "Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field.
But for Adam no suitable helper was found. So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh. Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man."

Genesis 1:27 says, of Day 6, "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them."

It wasn't some time after Day 6 that He created her, because "By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. [Gen 2:2]"

Since [Adam] AND the first woman, Eve, were created on Day 6 AND [Adam] named ALL the animals BEFORE her creation, he had to have named them all in less than a day. We must remember he was in an unfallen state and, probably, had the advantage of fewer "types" of animals, given the argument, above.

Sabertooth

If our understanding is correct that the serpent became the first [and only] limbless reptile [see Gen 3:14], it would follow that he is the common ancestor of ALL of our present-day snakes, a radical example of micro-evolution at work. This would infer that the same diversification process could have happened to other animals, as well, though there is no direct Biblical evidence to support this.

Click to expand...

That would be Lamarckism. Unless God also modified his genes as well when taking the legs away.

Dracil said:

That would be Lamarckism. Unless God also modified his genes as well when taking the legs away.

Click to expand...

Since it was a curse on him and his descendants, it would almost have to include a modification to his genes. If you question the reality of curses, check Joshua 6:26 and 1 Kings 16:34.

Literal, Biblical creation is vitalistic [i.e. miraculous] and not at the mercy of mechanism. It is full of examples of God's sudden, specific miraculous interventions in the affairs of Earth, after Day 7: the Noarchian Flood [Genesis 7:6], the scattering of humanity [Genesis 11:8], the dividing of the super-continent [Genesis 10:25], an extended day [Joshua 10:12-14] and Earth's temporary rotational reversal [2 Kings 20:8-11].

When the present state of nature does not agree with its given initial state, it is reasonable [and Biblically acceptable] to deduce that God intervened in a deliberate way. The rules of mechanism only seem to apply in the absence of vitalistic [i.e. miraculous] activity.

Your only other choice is to interpret the Bible against some "higher" standard, at which point it ceases to be a standard, altogether, making your worldview completely extra-Biblical.

Example: the separation of gene pools given, above, are a great basis for the emergence of the races. We start with one couple, probably red, and, now, have many races. The separation given, above, may not be the actual explanation, but it is a Biblically viable one.

Two side notes:

1. If the first serpent is, indeed, the father of all modern serpents, it is likely to have had moderate features. Its fossils, if found, would probably be indistinguishable from some modern serpents.

2. I find it interesting that Eve did not [seem to] wince when the serpent struck up a conversation with her...

Sabertooth

Vance said:

So, where do you fit in?

Click to expand...

I believe in Intelligent Design.

Everything in existance appears to be fashioned to the minutest detail to fit a particular intelligent design using math as the medium.

Sabertooth said:

the separation of gene pools given, above, are a great basis for the emergence of the races. We start with one couple, probably red, and, now, have many races. The separation given, above, may not be the actual explanation, but it is a Biblically viable one.

Two side notes:

1. If the first serpent is, indeed, the father of all modern serpents, it is likely to have had moderate features. Its fossils, if found, would probably be indistinguishable from some modern serpents.

2. I find it interesting that Eve did not [seem to] wince when the serpent struck up a conversation with her...

Sabertooth

Click to expand...

The origin of life has been linked to Africa. Which would elude to the origin of man being more likely to be black than red. I'm just theorizing here. On a genetic level, all races of mankind are almost identical. The difference is very slight. Isn't it also possible that races evolved to suit the climate of where they lived? That is what makes sense to me.

Regarding your sidenotes: What if the serpant, was not a literal serpant, but a symbol of something else?

Many things in the Bible were lessons written in a language that would make the spiritual truths of God easier to comprehend for mankind. Humanity is blind and ignorant after all. Parables and symbology are frequently used.

The serpant in some ancient scripture is used to symbolize the ushering in of knowledge or sentience to mankind. Without which we would not be self aware. Is our self awareness a curse? Would it be better to be a dog? I'm not so sure. In the scriptures I've read ignorance is evil and knowledge is godly.

And I have always wondered why, if God is omnitient as I believe God is, that God tempted Adam and Eve with the tree of knowledge put within their grasp...knowing full well that they would partake of the fruit God forbade them to partake of before they did? I think that God not only knew what would happen, God engineered it to take place as it did. Intelligent design. Omnipotence, omnitience, omnipresence.

All creation is balance. Good and evil. Light and dark. Knowledge and ignorance. Male and female. If God created one and not the other, would the world function the way it was intended to? Would anyone know the difference? Would good be appreciated or desired? Conflict is a learning tool. Adversity refines the soul. Evolution ensues. It all makes sense.

I'm not an authority on any of this. I just read a lot. And think a lot. And question. And wonder. I know this isn't a popular opinion, but I'm glad I'm a sentient being. As blind as I may very well be, being limitted as I am to my humanity.

Sabertooth said:

2. I find it interesting that Eve did not [seem to] wince when the serpent struck up a conversation with her...

Sabertooth

Click to expand...

Why does everyone assume they were having an interview across a desk. Have you ever been tempted by the evil one? How did it go?

statrei said:

Why does everyone assume they were having an interview across a desk. Have you ever been tempted by the evil one? How did it go?

Click to expand...

I am not referring to the fact that that she was tempted, but that she had a casual conversation with an animal. It would suggest that ALL animals had the capacity carry on a conversation at that time.

Sabertooth

Sabertooth said:

I am not referring to the fact that that she was tempted, but that she had a casual conversation with an animal. It would suggest that ALL animals had the capacity carry on a conversation at that time.

Sabertooth

Click to expand...

Who says it had to be at the level of speech? Some people today claim to be able to communincate with their animals. I think we are too quick to assume that the serpent spoke aloud and Eve engaged it in conversation.

A fresh look at Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 makes us realize it actually says:IN A FORMER STATE GOD PERFECTED THE HEAVENS AND THE EARTH.
BUT THE EARTH HAD BECOME A RUIN AND A DESOLATION,


AND THE DARKNESS OF JUDGMENT WAS UPON THE FACE OF IT.

I probably don't know enough about this to voice a strong opinion, but there are some facts that, from a scientific view, support the YEC's claims that the Earth isn't nearly as old as science says it is.

One way of scientifically figuring out how old the earth is (or how long ago something died) is by measuring the amount of sediment deposits (layers) in the ground. I would just like to point out that any catastrophe (or miracle),such as a meteor (dinosaurs) or the 40 day/40 night flood would add "several million years" worth of sediment, by modern calculations. This is mainly because Noah only took 2 of each animal, so the rest of the animals and plants (and dirt) piled up into many more layers.

Another way of testing how old something that was once alive is radiocarbon testing, where scientists measure how much carbon-14 is left in the subject, compare it to how much it began with, and, since they know how fast carbon-14 radioactively decays, measure its age.
The one problem I've found with this is that the carbon on earth builds up as time goes on, so something that died a few thousand years ago had a lot less carbon than it would have it our time period, and by now it would have a lot less, making it seem much older than it really is.

I know someone is going to read this and prove me wrong, but I just wanted to prove that science does not by any means perfectly describe the world around us.

Also, somebody mentioned earlier about the geniologies backing up YECs, but if i remember correctly, in those times people lived a lot longer, over 100 and somtimes 500-1000 years old. This would stretch out the time period that the geniologies cover, unlessthe days back then were much shorter. This in turn would disrupt gap theory, because why would the first five days of creation span "inefinately", then later days be short enough for people to live hundreds of years, and now for us to be lucky to hit 90. Either something wierd is going on with the Earth's rotation or God affected time in order to carry out His plan, or i have no clue what i'm talking about.
Go figure.

No matter which theory it is, or if it's somthing else entirely, it's God's plan and it will work.

M_Kid said:

I probably don't know enough about this to voice a strong opinion, but there are some facts that, from a scientific view, support the YEC's claims that the Earth isn't nearly as old as science says it is.

One way of scientifically figuring out how old the earth is (or how long ago something died) is by measuring the amount of sediment deposits (layers) in the ground. I would just like to point out that any catastrophe (or miracle),such as a meteor (dinosaurs) or the 40 day/40 night flood would add "several million years" worth of sediment, by modern calculations. This is mainly because Noah only took 2 of each animal, so the rest of the animals and plants (and dirt) piled up into many more layers.

Click to expand...

Actually, no it wouldn't add that much sediment. In fact it wouldn't really "add" sediment at all. A flood would have to pick up the sediment from somewhere else first and then deposit it elsewhere, so there would have to be enough erosion in one place to create sediment someplace else.

Also the distribution of animal and plant remains in the sediments does not correspond to the distribution expected from a flood. Nor do the genetic indicators in living plants and animals correspond to a recent radiation of species as would have to happen after a flood.

And those are just a few of things which show that the flood could not have been global.

Another way of testing how old something that was once alive is radiocarbon testing, where scientists measure how much carbon-14 is left in the subject, compare it to how much it began with, and, since they know how fast carbon-14 radioactively decays, measure its age.
The one problem I've found with this is that the carbon on earth builds up as time goes on, so something that died a few thousand years ago had a lot less carbon than it would have it our time period, and by now it would have a lot less, making it seem much older than it really is.

Click to expand...

It is a wee bit more complicated than that. It is not the total amount of carbon that is significant. Not even the total amount of carbon-14. It is how much carbon 14 there is compared to the normal carbon 12. The problem is that this ratio is not constant. You have to have a good idea of what the ratio was when the creature died. Fortunately, there are ways of measuring this. There are also ways of comparing c-14 date estimates with known dates to find out how accurate the c-14 dating is. C-14 dating techniques have improved a lot since it was first tried. Scientists can now measure up to 50,000 years fairly accurately.

One thing that will give scientists of the future a problem is that we are adding a lot of old carbon to the atmosphere when we burn fossil fuels. Old carbon is entirely c-12 with no c-14 left in it. So you have the dating backwards about. It is organisms that are dying now that will test out as older than they really are. The dates for organisms that died prior to the wide-spread use of coal and oil will be close to their real age. As long as that is 50,000 years or less. c-14 dating cannot be used on really old fossils.

I know someone is going to read this and prove me wrong, but I just wanted to prove that science does not by any means perfectly describe the world around us.

Click to expand...

No, it doesn't. Of course, no scientist claims that science describes things perfectly. But some descriptions are better than others. And the best descriptions of nature come from science.

No matter which theory it is, or if it's somthing else entirely, it's God's plan and it will work.

Click to expand...

Agreed. And welcome to the forum.

Interesting breakdown of origins theology. Personally I hold to theistic evolution most likely an abiogenesis variety and a mythical Adam and Eve. Would there be any reason to break it down further by saying God had to create the first life as in biogenesis. Comets carry simple amino acids so certainly all the building blocks can be present on other planets as well and the universe (IMO) is fine-tuned to producing life.

Everyone,

I'm a #3.

Joman.

Joman said:

Everyone,

I'm a #3.

Joman.

Click to expand...

Hi, Joman.

And welcome.

Do I know you from Christian Viewpoints? My username there is gbunty.

I would believe somewhere between hypothesis 6 and 8. Probably 6, as I tend to believe that Adam and Eve were "based" on real people (as representatives or similar), although were not in actual fact the first humans. I would not be surprised, however, if Adam and Eve were purely mythological.

Regarding the genesis of life, I don't necessarily believe it was created directly through supernatural means - the event may have arisen through natural means, although obviously predetermined by God. I'm fairly agnostic about this, however.

I don't care how impossible it sounds, God created the world in 6 days

For God all things are possible.

Besides the fact that it contridicts the bible, there is nothing unreasonable in saying that God could have created the entire universe 5 minutes ago just as it is now complete with human memories.

Saying God couldn't create the earth in 6 days is putting limits on a truely limitless God.

I don't think I've any heard anyone claim that God couldn't create the universe in six days, simply that He didn't.