Another thing I don't understand about the creationist position...

[pitabread]

Today it is recognized that the relationship of modern humans to the present anthropoid apes (e.g., chimpanzees) is through common ancestors rather than through direct descent.

Well of course, that's how evolution works. Humans didn't come from modern, extant species. Modern species don't evolve into other modern species.

 

[Hans Blaster]

By the way, has that old theory been moved out of schools? The original linear style theory resembled a prophecy in the bible, which might be why it is viewed as evil.

"Linear style theory"? Do you mean that "ascent of man" chart?

Darwin's model of evolution has always been a branching tree. His first evolutionary tree diagrams far predate the publication of his book.

 

[Strathos]

oh but it’s completely relevant to the discussion. I mean surely your not going to be wishy washy about science having to coincide with God’s word in order to believe it.

Miracles can supersede the laws of nature. Every Christian know this. But that isn't the issue with a literal Genesis.

The issue is that, not only is there no physical evidence it happened that way, but every available piece of physical evidence, from geology to biology to paleontology to astronomy, shows that the universe has a detailed history spanning billions of years, with multiple lines of evidence from different fields converging to show events that happened in the past (for example, the asteroid impact that killed off the dinosaurs some 65 million years ago). Literalist creationists have to insist that all of these things never happened.

Could all of this history embedded with nature itself have been faked? Sure, God could have done that. But why? That would make God a liar.

If you want to draw an analogy with the Resurrection, imagine that we had found Jesus' tomb, with the body still in it, and could confirm that it was Him. i.e., not only no evidence that something happened, but evidence that something completely contradictory happened instead.

Even if we did have the tomb and the body, that would still be much weaker evidence against the Resurrection than the evidence that exists against a literal 6-day creation.

 

[pitabread]

Sure, everything can be claimed a Satanic lie. Some things actually are, though.

Such claims have no meaningful value. As I said, it just comes across like a cheap form of gaslighting.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Misinterpreting the Bible, at best, does not help you.

Let's try to concentrate on the science.

I would surmise that is a statement of opinion not a statement of fact.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Well I surely hope that the scientists can figure out how to resurrect a body after it’s been dead for three days for your sake my friend. I’d hate to think that you can’t believe in Christ’s resurrection because scientists say it’s impossible.

That's good enough for me. Dead is dead.

 

[pitabread]

there is a difference and the fact that we have genetic similarity makes the difference all the more noticable.

I think the differences are more noticeable simply due to human bias. I've noticed that the closer to human kind people get, the more granular their perception of similarities and differences get.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Most creationists on this forum tend to be older (e.g. in their 60's or older). Which suggests their schooling re: evolution, if they even had any, would have been around 50 years ago. And public school teaching are usually decades out of date to begin with.

Hence why a lot of knowledge of evolution we see from creationists is probably at least 70+ years out of date.

Yes and it’s a scary thought that so many are being misled into thinking that God must operate within the boundaries of man’s knowledge of science.

 

[Speedwell]

"Linear style theory"? Do you mean that "ascent of man" chart?

Darwin's model of evolution has always been a branching tree. His first evolutionary tree diagrams far predate the publication of his book.

No, more the direct line version--half a limb, half a wing, useless for either function, creatures dragging around useless partly-finished appendages waiting for just the right mutation to come along and complete the job..

 

[pitabread]

God made a basic design for the 'innards' and uses it in a variety of creatures, just as car makers do. How different can creatures be living in the same ecosphere?

But there is no reason to do so if God wanted us to be truly distinct from all other forms of life. That we do share so many commonalities with other species, and indeed in a manner that fits perfectly with genetic inheritance, suggests differences of physical form really aren't that important in determining humanities "uniqueness".

 

[pitabread]

Yes and it’s a scary thought that so many are being misled into thinking that God must operate within the boundaries of man’s knowledge of science.

No more scary than people being misled into thinking that God must operate within the limitations of creationist theology.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Miracles can supersede the laws of nature. Every Christian know this. But that isn't the issue with a literal Genesis.

The issue is that, not only is there no physical evidence it happened that way, but every available piece of physical evidence, from geology to biology to paleontology to astronomy, shows that the universe has a detailed history spanning billions of years, with multiple lines of evidence from different fields converging to show events that happened in the past (for example, the asteroid impact that killed off the dinosaurs some 65 million years ago). Literalist creationists have to insist that all of these things never happened.

Could all of this history embedded with nature itself have been faked? Sure, God could have done that. But why? That would make God a liar.

If you want to draw an analogy with the Resurrection, imagine that we had found Jesus' tomb, with the body still in it, and could confirm that it was Him. i.e., not only no evidence that something happened, but evidence that something completely contradictory happened instead.

Even if we did have the tomb and the body, that would still be much weaker evidence against the Resurrection than the evidence that exists against a literal 6-day creation.

Would this be the first stumbling block God placed in the path of those without faith?

 

[BNR32FAN]

No more scary than people being misled to thinking that God must operate within the limitations of creationist theology.

Lol you mean the literal translation of God’s own words?

 

[pitabread]

If you study art at all, you will recognize themes that artists retain from work to work. An easy example is Raphael's use of triangular compositions and of primary colors in many of his works. When looking at God as an artist and the creation as his art, one can see these similarities you mention as design themes. Why use design themes at all? Because that's the way artists like to work.

The art analogy doesn't really work. There are artists that utilize wildly different styles and compositional structure in their own works.

Likewise, there are artists that blatant copy other artists both in terms of inspiration and in some cases deliberate forgery.

 

[pitabread]

Lol you mean the literal translation of God’s own words?

No, I mean a literal interpretation. Which incidentally still varies from creationist to creationist as no two creationists seem to share exactly the same interpretations.

 

[Speedwell]

Would this be the first stumbling block God placed in the path of those without faith?

No, it's just creationists trying to hold the Gospel of Christ hostage to their literal interpretation of Genesis--a stumbling block placed by themselves, not God.

 

[pitabread]

First of all, let us realize that consistency works both ways in this instance. Reusing common parts is perfectly consistent with a common designer.

Not entirely though. It's perfectly possible for a "common designer" to insert wholly novel components or reinvent things from the ground up. We see this all the time in human design.

Consistency can be drawn between data points depending on ones perspective assumptions, and when it comes to the creationist assumptions, evolution does not appear to be consistent with the biblical narrative. Is the biblical narrative consistent with the natural world? The answer will vary depending on the observers perspective.

Evolution seems perfectly consistent with what is described in Genesis 1. The emphasis on the Earth/waters bringing forth life, the stages in which different forms of life arose, and the emphasis on reproduction in populating the Earth is a very apt description of the history of life on Earth.

If Genesis described God as just miracling in every single living thing all at once, then it would certainly be at odds with reality. But Genesis doesn't describe that. It describes a process with special emphasis on reproduction (which is precisely what evolution is dependent on).

It is true that we are all made of the same stuff in the physical sense. But, it would also appear that human beings live on a separate plain than the rest of the animals. Our mental capacities are not the same as any other animal. So in that sense, that which makes us unique is directly related to how we perceive and categorize the world.

We're definitely more intelligent in certain aspects. But I don't think even intelligence fully sets us apart. It's more a question of degree rather than outright uniqueness.

Therefore, as much as we can say we are a part of the animal kingdom physically, there is also an inherent recognition that we stand apart from it. Biblically speaking, humans were created to have one foot in both worlds so to speak. We are to represent the divine from within our earthly place. So in that sense, there is nothing wrong with considering ourselves related to animals, but I don't believe we should define ourselves as animals.

I can buy the spiritual distinction in that respect. But I don't see how that is necessarily dependent on the mode of which the human physical form was created.

 

[Strathos]

Would this be the first stumbling block God placed in the path of those without faith?

If you have faith, you can trust that God wasn't deceptive when creating the universe.

The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.

When we examine the stars, we find a universe that is vast and billions of yeas old. Therefore, God made it that way.

I find it much easier to believe that many verses in the Bible are not meant to be literal, but rather allegory and metaphor, than to believe that God planted billions of years of false history in the universe that never happened. But that's just me.

 

[pitabread]

When we examine the stars, we find a universe that is vast and billions of yeas old. Therefore, God made it that way.

It's especially worth noting that even Young-Earth creationist organizations are running into that same result. The Institute For Creation Research's RATE project concluded that there is hundreds of millions of years of radiation to account for on Earth. Yet they don't have an explanation for how that much radiation could have otherwise occurred (short of resorting to arbitrary miracles, which in turn suggests a deception).

 

[BNR32FAN]

No, I mean a literal interpretation. Which incidentally still varies from creationist to creationist as no two creationists seem to share exactly the same interpretations.

Wow if that were true then there would be literally billions of different beliefs on the 6 day creation. I honestly don’t see how anyone could possibly make such a presumptuous claim seeing how there’s absolutely no way to substantiate it.