A simple question

[shernren]

For me, the reason I believe what I believe is that I believe it is what God wants me to believe. I don't want to end up telling my life story again, but when I was faced with the evidence for evolution, I found that the mental gymnastics I needed to believe in YECism without creation science just weren't worth it. YECism has done nothing for my theological understanding, and nothing to make me a better person. So I don't believe that God needs me to believe it.

To me I don't see why I need to believe that there is only a supernatural cause without a naturalistic explanation. It's like the story of Nabal in 1 Samuel 25. Scripture says God "made his heart as stone". Now, I believe that God killed him. But I do suspect that it is the first and only recorded cardiac arrest in the Bible. Just because I believe there is a naturalistic explanation (that he hadn't been taking care of his cardiovascular system) doesn't mean I don't believe in the supernatural cause (Goddidit! Goddidit!).

 

[gluadys]

There is yet another creation on this earth that will replace this one.

This is something I have been wondering about. I have seen creationists who deny this, who say the new creation will not be on this earth but on a different planet, perhaps even in a different dimension or universe.

But you say the new creation will be on this earth. I have got that right?

Does this mean that the old creation you speak of, the one that was destroyed, that was on this earth too?

Genez, this is a serious question about gap theory. I would really like to know what you believe on this point.

 

[GenemZ]

Complex nervous, digestive, etc. systems could have evolved over time.

Could have?.... Then where will a definitive answer come from? Could have?
If you realized how complex these interdependent systems are, you would also realize that one could not have survived while waiting for the other to get there. And, they needed to evolve perfectly, simultaneously. The brain was not waiting for the lungs to catch up.

I think there is denial going on to think that all our biological systems simply evolved to where they are from a simple singe cell amoeba. Yet, the amoeba survives just fine as it is. Why do we still have the amoeba with us?

Who says that evolution wasn't by design? I think you're referring to deistic or atheistic, not theistic, evolution.

Most evolutionists I have had contact with are of that ilk. And, the TOE Christians I meet sound like atheists in how they deny what the Word of God says. I believe in a certain amount of built in capacity for change in a given species, because God designed it that way. But, to think that all species started witha single parent is preposterous! Yet, they do not blink. Just as a gay does not blink when he sees no wrong in his bias.

Genesis 2:7 niv
"the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being."

TOE's declare that verse to be a lie.

And, this, too.

19 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. 20 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. 21 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. 22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man."

Just like the gays say the following is a lie.

Leviticus 18:22 niv
" 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."

Yet, they do not blink! They provide rationales to deny what is being said. Bias blinds the minds of those who take pride in their natural selves and denies God's Word when its plain spoken and straighforward.

2 Timothy 2:11-13 nkjv
" This is a faithful saying:
For if we died with Him,
We shall also live with Him.
If we endure,
We shall also reign with Him.
If we deny Him,
He also will deny us.
If we are faithless,
He remains faithful;
He cannot deny Himself."

We deny Him by denying the Word.

Matthew 4:4 niv
"Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.' "


Grace and truth, GeneZ

 

[rmwilliamsll]

I believe in a certain amount of built in capacity for change in a given species,

all you have to do to prove your point is to show this.
either a boundary between kinds or some other barrier.

but everything we have thus discovered in genetics shows no such limitation. i can pick up a book on fruit flies* and learn how the hox genes work and almost all of the information and principles is readily adaptable to human beings.

we can work with inserting human genes into pigs with viral vectors.
GM as a field is a loud cry that this barrier does not exist.

try a stab at it, where is this limitation on genetic variability?
i see nothing but extraordinary continuity of living things on the biochemical and genetic level.

*i read an excellent fruit fly book this week-
Call # QL537.D76 L39 1992
Author Lawrence, Peter A. (Peter Anthony), 1941-
Title The making of a fly : the genetics of animal design
....

 

[Sojourner<><]

This is just something interesting found in regards to the topic of 'kinds' from this site: http://www.ii.uib.no/~tim/treeOfLifeImagePage.html

It's a 3d visualization of the cladogram of the entire phylogenic tree of life. Although this was not generated from a creationist perspective, you can see how patterns are beginning to arise that support the idea of Biblical 'kinds'.

Apparently, researchers are having a very hard time determining the relationships between the major lineages (I wonder why...).

 

[GenemZ]

we can work with inserting human genes into pigs with viral vectors. GM as a field is a loud cry that this barrier does not exist.

What you speak of requires an outside influence to force a change. It is not applicable to the so called millions of years of evolutionary change.

*i read an excellent fruit fly book this week-
Call # QL537.D76 L39 1992
Author Lawrence, Peter A. (Peter Anthony), 1941-
Title The making of a fly : the genetics of animal design
....

The Lord created that fruit fly, as a fruit fly. He also created fruit. Bananas did not become watermellons, nor did apples become cherries. Yet, over the centuries bananas may have evolved into a different consistent state of being what we now know as a banana.

Have a nice Day, GeneZ

 

[gluadys]

If you realized how complex these interdependent systems are, you would also realize that one could not have survived while waiting for the other to get there. And, they needed to evolve perfectly, simultaneously. The brain was not waiting for the lungs to catch up.

More evidence that you have not studied evolution.

Why do we still have the amoeba with us?

And more.

I believe in a certain amount of built in capacity for change in a given species, because God designed it that way.

That "capacity to change" is the capacity to evolve. And I agree---evolution was God's design.

But, to think that all species started witha single parent is preposterous!

Not a single parent. A single parent species--or a few parent species. Evolution is about populations, not individuals. Individuals do not evolve.

You may think it is preposterous, but you are pre-judging evidence you are refusing to investigate.

Yet, they do not blink. Just as a gay does not blink when he sees no wrong in his bias.

Are you suggesting guilt by association?

Genesis 2:7 niv
"the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being."

TOE's declare that verse to be a lie.

That is a lie about TEs. I believe that verse implicitly. I see nothing in it to contradict evolution.

 

[gluadys]

This is just something interesting found in regards to the topic of 'kinds' from this site: http://www.ii.uib.no/~tim/treeOfLifeImagePage.html

It's a 3d visualization of the cladogram of the entire phylogenic tree of life. Although this was not generated from a creationist perspective, you can see how patterns are beginning to arise that support the idea of Biblical 'kinds'.

God designed evolution to create kinds.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

we can work with inserting human genes into pigs with viral vectors. GM as a field is a loud cry that this barrier does not exist.

What you speak of requires an outside influence to force a change. It is not applicable to the so called millions of years of evolutionary change.

not so, HERV's in general and HERV-W in particular are random bits of viral genes inserted into the human genome over a long period of time. HERV-W, at least one has been co-opted as a protein in placental development. there is good evidence that there are several more where trans-species genetic material are transferred as well with the retrovirus


......

 

[Micaiah]

God designed evolution to create kinds.

There is no indication in Scripture that God used evolution in creating life. You get exactly the opposite impression from reading the matter of fact account of Creation given in Genesis 1 and 2.

 

[gluadys]

There is no indication in Scripture that God used evolution in creating life. You get exactly the opposite impression from reading the matter of fact account of Creation given in Genesis 1 and 2.

You mean that you do. I don't get the opposite impression at all.

 

[The Lady Kate]

There is no indication in Scripture that God used evolution in creating life.

There is no indication in Scripture that God used protons, neutrons, and electrons in creating life...yet He did.

 

[GenemZ]

More evidence that you have not studied evolution.



And more.





That "capacity to change" is the capacity to evolve. And I agree---evolution was God's design.




Not a single parent. A single parent species--or a few parent species. Evolution is about populations, not individuals. Individuals do not evolve.

You may think it is preposterous, but you are pre-judging evidence you are refusing to investigate.



Are you suggesting guilt by association?




That is a lie about TEs. I believe that verse implicitly. I see nothing in it to contradict evolution.

I love the way you explain yourself. Never in vague generalities. Always specific and informative. I learn a lot from you. Thank you.

Grace and peace, GeneZ

 

[GenemZ]

Genez, this is a serious question about gap theory. I would really like to know what you believe on this point.

I will give only a general synopsis for now.

There will be two recreations of this planet. The New Heavens and Earth spoken of by Isaiah, will be a remaking of this planet into a perfect environment. (Isaiah 11:6-9, Isaiah 65:17-25, Isaiah 67:22-24)

There is also spoken of by Peter of a complete nuclear meltdown of all elements of the planet.

2 Peter 3:12-13 niv
"As you look forward to the day of God and speed its coming.That day will bring about the destruction of the heavens by fire, and the elements will melt in the heat. But in keeping with his promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, the home of righteousness."

The Greek word translated "elements" is the same word used for the element chart used in chemistry. This planet will melt down on the molecular level. It will no longer be used. A new planet will replace it, and a new universe,as well.

2 Peter 3:10 niv
"But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything in it will be laid bare."

This planet we now know will be replaced by an entirely new planet. The one that is to be re-made, as spoken of by Isaiah, is this present planet that has been made over a good number of times already.

What we find in Genesis 1:2, is the refurbishning of planet earth. Just one of several ages being made new. There was just prior to this creation another creation covering the earth and had been destroyed. Up until this creation Satan and his angels had dominion over this planet. Adam was to replace Satan as the head of planet earth. When Adam fell, rulership fell back into Satan's hands by default.

YEC's are stuck in defending a traditional belief. Traditional belief is what man made religions are founded upon. It blinds one to the spiritual guidance into all truth. TOE is the most recent traditional thought on creation to come down the pike. It satisfies a certain mind set,that YEC fails to.

I find that YEC's leadership tends to be trained in the discipline of science. But, they have a weakness when it comes to analyzing Scripture. They distort both. Just as Christians who believe TOE, distort both. They just distort in different areas.

That was very general, and very brief. But, you asked where I stand.

Grace and peace, GeneZ

 

[shernren]

Genez, what I'm hearing is that every time a creation was / is scrapped there is a massive meltdown, right? And that the most recent time this happened was 6000 years ago. Well a destructive event of the kind you postulated should cause the resetting of most clocks that give the earth an old age. Evidently, though, it hasn't.

There is no indication in Scripture that God used evolution in creating life. You get exactly the opposite impression from reading the matter of fact account of Creation given in Genesis 1 and 2.

There is no indication in Scripture that microorganisms are responsible for skin diseases. You get exactly the opposite impression from reading the matter of fact accounts of sterilization and cleansing rituals in the Torah. So when a child has eczema do you send him to the pastor or to the doctor? The Bible was never meant to make scientific statements.

 

[gluadys]

I will give only a general synopsis for now.

There will be two recreations of this planet. The New Heavens and Earth spoken of by Isaiah, will be a remaking of this planet into a perfect environment. (Isaiah 11:6-9, Isaiah 65:17-25, Isaiah 67:22-24)

There is also spoken of by Peter of a complete nuclear meltdown of all elements of the planet.


The Greek word translated "elements" is the same word used for the element chart used in chemistry. This planet will melt down on the molecular level. It will no longer be used. A new planet will replace it, and a new universe,as well.

Are you saying that Isaiah and Peter are describing two separate events?



Why would the new perfect environment described by Isaiah be scrapped in favour of a new planet?

What we find in Genesis 1:2, is the refurbishning of planet earth. Just one of several ages being made new. There was just prior to this creation another creation covering the earth and had been destroyed.

So the past destruction which left the earth tohu and bohu took place on this earth, the same one we live on today? We are not on a different planet than the one that was destroyed?

 

[Sojourner<><]

There is no indication in Scripture that God used protons, neutrons, and electrons in creating life...yet He did.

The problem is common ancestry.

A straight-forward interpretation suggests that God created plants , then sea life, then animals, - each according to its own kind. Common ancestry contradicts this. However, if God created every creature and then they began to adapt or evolve, then there is no contradiction.

 

[gluadys]

The problem is common ancestry.

A straight-forward interpretation suggests that God created plants , then sea life, then animals, - each according to its own kind. Common ancestry contradicts this. However, if God created every creature and then they began to adapt or evolve, then there is no contradiction.

Actually that assumes a lot about what the text says. If you stick more closely to the text, it says God commanded the earth and the waters to bring forth a whole array of plants and animals which were to reproduce after their own kind. It doesn't really say anything about each kind being created separately.

Creationists accept that common ancestry occurs within the kind. They grant that they have no firm definition of kind. So what prevents two or more taxonomic families or orders having a common ancestor, even though we may think of them as "kinds". What logic, for example, suggests that the modern squirrel "kind" and the modern beaver "kind" might not have a common ancestor in an ancestral rodent "kind"?

Another way to phrase the question is: why can't kinds be formed cladistically?

 

[Micaiah]

Actually that assumes a lot about what the text says. If you stick more closely to the text, it says God commanded the earth and the waters to bring forth a whole array of plants and animals which were to reproduce after their own kind. It doesn't really say anything about each kind being created separately.

Good to see you have a concept of what sticking closely to the text means.

I don't see any reference to reproduction in Genesis 1. It says animals were created according to their kind. That says to me that God created a different kinds of animals. I look around the world today and say that the Bible is 100 % scientifically correct in this matter.

 

[Sojourner<><]

Actually that assumes a lot about what the text says. If you stick more closely to the text, it says God commanded the earth and the waters to bring forth a whole array of plants and animals which were to reproduce after their own kind. It doesn't really say anything about each kind being created separately.

I didn't go into too much detail here. First and foremost there are 4 major groups of life that were created at different times. Plants, sea life, animals on dry land and then humans. The first 3 groups then contain different kinds within them. I agree that the text doesn't seem to suggest that each animal was created one after the other, but rather all animals were created simultaneously within each successive group (the creative process here being a mystery). What is clear here is that God did not create one creature that grew into a multitude - He created the multitudes all at once.

Creationists accept that common ancestry occurs within the kind. They grant that they have no firm definition of kind. So what prevents two or more taxonomic families or orders having a common ancestor, even though we may think of them as "kinds". What logic, for example, suggests that the modern squirrel "kind" and the modern beaver "kind" might not have a common ancestor in an ancestral rodent "kind"?

Another way to phrase the question is: why can't kinds be formed cladistically?

This is a difficult question because the term 'kind' was not originated by us to be used as a nomenclatural group. Honestly I don't know what exactly God considers to be a kind. I suppose it would be a possibility that a kind can undergo speciation to break apart into different kinds. Or perhaps a kind is a larger group that contains a number of what we think of as individual species. The important thing is that according to Genesis, God created some array of separate kinds in the beginning rather than a single life form from which the kinds evolved. In other words, there are some creatures that are related to others, but not all are related to all others.