Creation in six days, yet slow change and great limitation for everything now on earth...

[JAL]

@The Barbarian,

I personally don't believe in anything magical or supernatural, for example I dismiss creation ex nihilo as incoherence. God isn't a witch/sorcerer in my opinion but rather a potter who molds clay. But as for you, you do believe in creation ex nihilo. Given that belief, I'm curious - why abiogenesis and slow evolution? In your view, why didn't God simply pop everything into existence fully formed and ready made?

 

[The Barbarian]

I personally don't believe in anything magical or supernatural, for example I dismiss creation ex nihilo as incoherence. God isn't a witch/sorcerer in my opinion but rather a potter who molds clay.

I don't see how you could consider an omnipotent Creator to be a "witch/sorcerer."

John 1:3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.

1 Corinthians 8:6 Yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.

But as for you, you do believe in creation ex nihilo. Given that belief, I'm curious - why abiogenesis and slow evolution?

God created the universe, from which all other things unfolded as He commanded. He has not need for a timetable; fast or slow by our reckoning is not an issue for Him.

In your view, why didn't God simply pop everything into existence fully formed and ready made?

Some creationists think that He did at one point. Gerald Aardsma's "virtual history" doctrine is an example. Do you know what "last Tuesdayism" is? Why not just accept His creation as it is?

 

[The Barbarian]

God merits no praise for creation if no tinkering was involved for Him to acquire His knowledge and expertise.

You don't think perfection is praiseworthy? That seems odd to me. But that would explain some of your beliefs.

 

[The Barbarian]

No, because in RESPECT TO ABIOGENESIS, these two assertions differ vastly:
...(1). In Genesis God says that abiogenesis occurred.
...(2). In Genesis God decreed the emergence of species (an observable phenomenon, at least to the angels) which MIGHT imply abiogenesis.

Your constant fallback statement.

You keep making the same mistake. Here, you again conflate abiogenesis with biological evolution. BTW, the emergence of species has also been observed by humans.

It's becoming painfully clear that most of the time when you've leveraged this accusation, you're just plain misreading me.

See above. If you didn't mean it, why say it? Evolution can't imply abiogenesis.

 

[The Barbarian]

Proof of non-literalism? Yet your science books will tell you, "The sun rises in east and sets in the west."

No, it says that this is caused by the rotation of the Earth. You've merely made that claim.

[/quote]That's not literally true, is it?[/quote]

It's not true at all. Science texts say that the apparent motion of the Sun is due to the Earth's rotation.

Great. I've just proved, by your logic, that your science textbooks are non-literal.

Nice try.

 

[JAL]

See above. If you didn't mean it, why say it? Evolution can't imply abiogenesis.

Proving my point. You read me the way you WANT to read me. Nothing more convenient than a strawman, right?

 

[JAL]

God created the universe, from which all other things unfolded as He commanded. He has not need for a timetable; fast or slow by our reckoning is not an issue for Him.

You constantly do this. Sheer assertion. Your view is ALWAYS the default. (And please don't retort with 2 Peter 3:8, as that verse states the converse of itself in the same vein, thereby leaving precious little certainty as to Peter's meaning).

 

[JAL]

I don't see how you could consider an omnipotent Creator to be a "witch/sorcerer."

Dishonest debating. I was extrapolating YOUR view of God.

Magic/supernatural is what witches/sorcerers indulge in. That's YOUR view of God, not mine. And it has no merit!

 

[The Barbarian]

JAL said: ↑
No, because in RESPECT TO ABIOGENESIS, these two assertions differ vastly:
...(1). In Genesis God says that abiogenesis occurred.
...(2). In Genesis God decreed the emergence of species (an observable phenomenon, at least to the angels) which MIGHT imply abiogenesis.

The Barbarian, post: 76988077, member: 7989"]You keep making the same mistake. Here, you again conflate abiogenesis with biological evolution. BTW, the emergence of species has also been observed by humans.

Since God says that the Earth brought forth living things according to His will, there's really no scriptural support for denying it.

 

[The Barbarian]

Magic/supernatural is what witches/sorcerers indulge in. That's YOUR view of God, not mine. And it has no merit!

Conflating magic with God's will and power is an error:

Magic and miracles might mean the same thing to some people, but there is actually a vast difference between the two terms. It is proper to say that Jesus worked miracles, but it would be wrong to attribute His works to magic. Basically, magic and miracles differ in their source: magic has either a human or demonic source, but miracles are a supernatural work of God.

 

[JAL]

Since God says that the Earth brought forth living things according to His will, there's really no scriptural support for denying it.

Sheer assertion. Why is your interpretation presupposed to be the only possible correct one? Suppose a farmer spends several days planting seed and inseminating cows. At the end of the week, at the dinner table, he holds up his glass of wine with this toast, "Let the land bring forth a rich harvest and multiple cattle." (In fact he could make this statement even BEFORE laying that groundwork).

Is he referring to abiogenesis? Clearly not.

 

[The Barbarian]

Sheer assertion. Why is your interpretation presupposed to be the only possible correct one? Suppose a farmer spends several days planting seed and inseminating cows. At the end of the week, at the dinner table, he holds up his glass of wine with this toast, "Let the land bring forth a rich harvest and multiple cattle."

Never heard a farmer make a statement like that. Land doesn't bring forth cattle. Other cattle bring forth cattle, although in the long run, cattle were brought forth by other species. And in the really long run, the earth brought forth cattle via a chain of other organisms, the first of them via abiogenesis.

Obfuscation won't work, either.

 

[JAL]

Never heard a farmer make a statement like that. Land doesn't bring forth cattle.

You're nitpicking my response. You weren't part of a 3,000 year old Hebrew-speaking culture and hence can only have limited understanding of its idiomatic expressions. To that ancient Hebrew mindset, the kind of language I used could idiomatically amount to this, "Let the land be prolific/prosperous/abundant of harvest and cattle."

Again, your interpretation isn't the only possible one. And notice the next verse:

"God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and everything that crawls upon the earth according to its kind."

That doesn't sound like either abiogenesis or evolution to me.

 

[JAL]

Conflating magic with God's will and power is an error:

Magic and miracles might mean the same thing to some people, but there is actually a vast difference between the two terms. It is proper to say that Jesus worked miracles, but it would be wrong to attribute His works to magic. Basically, magic and miracles differ in their source: magic has either a human or demonic source, but miracles are a supernatural work of God.

Double standard. What you're saying is, "When God does magic/sorcery/witchcraft, let's call it something else."

 

[The Barbarian]

"God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and everything that crawls upon the earth according to its kind."

That doesn't sound like either abiogenesis or evolution to me.

He says he created them by bringing them forth from the earth. You just don't approve of the way He did it. And you seem to be more and more upset with me, so perhaps we should not respond to each other for a bit. I'll let you have the last word.

 

[JAL]

No, it says that this is caused by the rotation of the Earth. You've merely made that claim.

Actually I read those words in a science article. And it left an indelible impression upon me even though I no longer have the article.

 

[JAL]

He says he created them by bringing them forth from the earth. You just don't approve of the way He did it. And you seem to be more and more upset with me, so perhaps we should not respond to each other for a bit. I'll let you have the last word.

Sheer assertion.

 

[JAL]

He says he created them by bringing them forth from the earth.

So? He brought Adam and Eve forth from the earth - formed them from the dust of the earth. That proves abiogenesis?

 

[JAL]

He says he created them by bringing them forth from the earth.

We are talking about the same verse, right?

"24And God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, land crawlers, and beasts of the earth according to their kinds.”

That's abiogenesis in your view? Are we reading the same verse? Since when are "livestock, land crawlers, and beasts of the earth" examples of abiogenesis? And if any doubts remained about the "kinds" at issue here, the next verse confirms:

" 25God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and everything that crawls upon the earth according to its kind.'

Exegetically, you're trying to pull a rabbit out of a hat. You're trying to make the text say what YOU want it say.

 

[JAL]

@The Barbarian,

Ok NOW I see what happened to you at verses 24 and 25 - I now see why you read that passage as abiogenesis. You're still confusing abiogenesis with evolution. You might want to look up those terms in a science textbook.