Creation, science, and the Nicene creed

[TLK Valentine]

Not at all, it was actually toned down.

Oh, you were there? How wonderful!

Anything can be abused, and probably will be. That does not change the reality of things.

Agreed.

God and the spiritual are realties.

Disagreed.

Your invented point has no value as far as the bible goes. Jesus did not say He cast out demons, and restored minds and bodies to show us He had nothing to do with things! Ridiculous contortion.

What exactly are you contorting this time?

The Bible authors told that story to make a point. Their intended audience got it. You didn't.

All that means is that they were smarter than you.

In some cases a mind is affected by demonic activity. They used to bind them with chains, these days the method de jour seems to be to drug them into a stupor (and make a lot of money doing so)

Demons are allergic to Haldol, then?

Gabriel spoke to Mary, she understood fine. So do most of us reading the bible.

Does Gabriel (or any of his compatriots) speak to you?

Belief in demonic drugs can 'work' for some, but it is artificial and deceptive, and comes with addiction and side effects.

Drugs are only the tip of the iceberg, dad -- We know that earthquakes happen to faultlines, not to evil places. We know that lightning is every bit as likely to strike a saint as a sinner. We know where diseases come from, and how to treat them.

The authors of the Bible didn't know these things -- you choose not to, either.

 

[mark kennedy]

There was also rain being withheld and even wind that are part of the end time events from God. One cannot say that all these things are strictly 'natural' and that man understands them.

Did you ever notice the Nicene Creed is reminiscent of verses like this:

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. For by it the elders obtained a good testimony. By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible. (Heb. 11:1-3)​

The real issue is whether or not the universe and life was the result of a miracle, God acting in time and space, or if exclusively naturalistic explanations cover everything.

 

[HitchSlap]

Did you ever notice the Nicene Creed is reminiscent of verses like this:

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. For by it the elders obtained a good testimony. By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible. (Heb. 11:1-3)​

The real issue is whether or not the universe and life was the result of a miracle, God acting in time and space, or if exclusively naturalistic explanations cover everything.

While we're at it, why not farting purple pixies?

 

[benelchi]

Creationism wasn't even a thing until the 20th century.

How are you defining "creationism?"
Certainly, you cannot be defining it as a belief that God created everything, right?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Did you ever notice the Nicene Creed is reminiscent of verses like this:

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. For by it the elders obtained a good testimony. By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible. (Heb. 11:1-3)​

The real issue is whether or not the universe and life was the result of a miracle, God acting in time and space, or if exclusively naturalistic explanations cover everything.

Which God?

 

[HitchSlap]

How are you defining "creationism?"
Certainly, you cannot be defining it as a belief that God created everything, right?

Young Earth creationism - Wikipedia

 

[KWCrazy]

Being quite familiar with Scripture I can't think of anything in Scripture which should be contradictory to the theory of common descent.

Oh, I can help with that.
Genesis 1:31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.
Genesis 5:1 This is the written account of Adam’s family line. When God created mankind, he made them in the likeness of God. 2 He created them male and female and blessed them. And he named them “Mankind” when they were created.
Psalms 33:9 For he spoke, and it came to be; he commanded, and it stood firm.
Hebrews 11:1-3 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. For by it the people of old received their commendation. By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.
Romans 1:20-26 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.
John 1:1-51 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men.
John 5:46-47 For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?”

Here's a good one.
Romans 5:12-21 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned— for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come. But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man's trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. And the free gift is not like the result of that one man's sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification

If sin and death came into the world through Adam's sin, how do you explain the BILLIONS of animals that would have died before Adam?

This one is my favorite. It's part of the Ten Commandments; carved into a stone tablet by the finger of God... and yet Christians refuse to believe it.
Exodus 20:11 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

So while there are many passages of scripture which contradict evolution, in 20 years nobody has ever been able to find a passage to support it without taking fractions of verses out of context. Including the rest of the passage renders such misquotes obviously false.

There are two creation stories, right next to each other,

No there aren't, but you've had that explained to you before.

"For who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars?

Hey, Dude. Let there be light. Remember? So God created a light which shone on the earth; thus giving us an evening and morning with a rotating planet.

 

[HitchSlap]

Oh, I can help with that.
Genesis 1:31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.
Genesis 5:1 This is the written account of Adam’s family line. When God created mankind, he made them in the likeness of God. 2 He created them male and female and blessed them. And he named them “Mankind” when they were created.
Psalms 33:9 For he spoke, and it came to be; he commanded, and it stood firm.
Hebrews 11:1-3 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. For by it the people of old received their commendation. By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.
Romans 1:20-26 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.
John 1:1-51 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men.
John 5:46-47 For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?”

Here's a good one.
Romans 5:12-21 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned— for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come. But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man's trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. And the free gift is not like the result of that one man's sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification

If sin and death came into the world through Adam's sin, how do you explain the BILLIONS of animals that would have died before Adam?

This one is my favorite. It's part of the Ten Commandments; carved into a stone tablet by the finger of God... and yet Christians refuse to believe it.
Exodus 20:11 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

So while there are many passages of scripture which contradict evolution, in 20 years nobody has ever been able to find a passage to support it without taking fractions of verses out of context. Including the rest of the passage renders such misquotes obviously false.

No there aren't, but you've had that explained to you before.

Hey, Dude. Let there be light. Remember? So God created a light which shone on the earth; thus giving us an evening and morning with a rotating planet.

 

[KWCrazy]

Young Earth creationism - Wikipedia

Jesus was a young earth creationist. He taught from the Scriptures as historical fact.

 

[HitchSlap]

Jesus was a young earth creationist. He taught from the Scriptures as historical fact.

Hearsay.

You have no idea what Jesus said.

 

[dad]

Disagreed.

No God or spiritual, then. OK.

The Bible authors told that story to make a point. Their intended audience got it. You didn't.

They wrote the truth and what happened. The strange invented points they 'really' had in mind are the haven of cranks and fanatics, and deniers.

All that means is that they were smarter than you.

God chose the foolish actually to confound the wise...or those that think they are wise.

Demons are allergic to Haldol, then?

Since it causes suffering in their victims, they may like it. Who do you think inspired a lot of that crap?

Does Gabriel (or any of his compatriots) speak to you?

Not yet. But that is no reason for spirit denial.

Drugs are only the tip of the iceberg, dad -- We know that earthquakes happen to faultlines, not to evil places.

Science can't predict quakes. I wouldn't brag about what they know. The trick is to predict exactly when, not just where. Besides your little theory does not hold water. In the end there is to be a worldwide quake, so forget just on faultlines.

We know that lightning is every bit as likely to strike a saint as a sinner. We know where diseases come from, and how to treat them.

First you would need to know the difference between those folks. Next, let's see where lighning in the bible is supposed to strike either?

 

[dad]

Did you ever notice the Nicene Creed is reminiscent of verses like this:

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. For by it the elders obtained a good testimony. By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible. (Heb. 11:1-3)​

The real issue is whether or not the universe and life was the result of a miracle, God acting in time and space, or if exclusively naturalistic explanations cover everything.

Jesus formed Adam in creation week, so when they say they believe in some 'Adam' that evolved, and therefore believe the bible, because they feel God sort of presided over it somehow, I consider that unbelief.

Now of those 'believers' that think God 'created' the universe via being there hiding in the background at the big bang, I have to consider that unbelief as well. I wonder if a single one of those folks would agree that the universe will roll up like a scroll and be no more?

 

[mark kennedy]

Jesus formed Adam in creation week, so when they say they believe in some 'Adam' that evolved, and therefore believe the bible, because they feel God sort of presided over it somehow, I consider that unbelief.

Romans 5 talks about Adam as the cause of sin and death, Christ as the source of life and peace. There is a reason the incarnation is sandwiched in between two confessions of God as creator. What about the resurrection, New birth or I don't know, the New heaven's and the New earth.

Now of those 'believers' that think God 'created' the universe via being there hiding in the background at the big bang, I have to consider that unbelief as well. I wonder if a single one of those folks would agree that the universe will roll up like a scroll and be no more?

This was never about interpreting a couple if isolated texts, this is about God doing wantonly God can do, with Genesis 1 you have two choices, believe it or don't.

 

[dad]

Romans 5 talks about Adam as the cause of sin and death, Christ as the source of life and peace. There is a reason the incarnation is sandwiched in between two confessions of God as creator. What about the resurrection, New birth or I don't know, the New heaven's and the New earth.



This was never about interpreting a couple if isolated texts, this is about God doing wantonly God can do, with Genesis 1 you have two choices, believe it or don't.

OK, so mods and posters that use a Christian icon...take heed. Many of us are tired of the drooling hypocrisy.

I think your approach has been to become an expert in the sciences, and try to find sort of natural explanations of why science was wrong, on things like genetics.

My approach has been to assume that there is no natural explanation possible for the future or the days of Genesis, as you probably know. In either case we try to believe Scripture, and God over man.

 

[mark kennedy]

OK, so mods and posters that use a Christian icon...take heed. Many of us are tired of the drooling hypocrisy.

I think your approach has been to become an expert in the sciences, and try to find sort of natural explanations of why science was wrong, on things like genetics.

My approach has been to assume that there is no natural explanation possible for the future or the days of Genesis, as you probably know. In either case we try to believe Scripture, and God over man.

I discovered genetics early and it was like math, its not somebody's opinion. I'm not sure expertise is required since I can get most of what I need from the abstract and the discussion. I've seen it silence there cliches and fallacious rhetoric so many times and I always pick up something new. A few days ago I heard an NPR story on a biotechnic tool that can edit DNA, no joke it works it's called Crisper or some such. That's why I keep coming back the arguments haven't changed, insult first ask questions later. Its because genetics is growing like wild fire and little do they know, Darwinian evolution has nothing to do with it.

I think your approach is more presuppositional, kind of a rationalistic approach. Mines more evidential, I like to use evidence I know they can argue against. Evidential apologetics is tough, presuppositions gets results early and often where evidential arguments can take some time to build.

 

[dad]

I discovered genetics early and it was like math, its not somebody's opinion. I'm not sure expertise is required since I can get most of what I need from the abstract and the discussion. I've seen it silence there cliches and fallacious rhetoric so many times and I always pick up something new. A few days ago I heard an NPR story on a biotechnic tool that can edit DNA, no joke it works it's called Crisper or some such. That's why I keep coming back the arguments haven't changed, insult first ask questions later. Its because genetics is growing like wild fire and little do they know, Darwinian evolution has nothing to do with it.

I think your approach is more presuppositional, kind of a rationalistic approach. Mines more evidential, I like to use evidence I know they can argue against. Evidential apologetics is tough, presuppositions gets results early and often where evidential arguments can take some time to build.

Ha. Yes it is easy to just tell them they don't know what they are talking about. Saves on the research time Since they have no evidence, I figure why would I need any? If the millennium will see changes in genetics, that allow lions to eat grass, then I figure they need to know what genetics will be like then, to talk about the future. Instead they obsess on how it now works and then hope they can apply that to the future...or past.

They claim that I cannot believe the future or par past are different without being able to prove it...which is ridiculous as no one knows. Yet they make piles of claims based on a belief nature will be or was the same. I used to think science was about knowing, and so when they claimed the bible was wrong it was somewhat troubling. I now know that science is about godless belief when it comes to the future and deep past.

I also learned a lot along the way. I got about 4 0r five idiotic warnings about supposed flaming in the last few days. One of them was for saying 'haha'!

Anyhow, I think we agree on the issue of the creed including a real creation that evolution cannot fit the bill.

 

[mark kennedy]

Ha. Yes it is easy to just tell them they don't know what they are talking about. Saves on the research time Since they have no evidence, I figure why would I need any? If the millennium will see changes in genetics, that allow lions to eat grass, then I figure they need to know what genetics will be like then, to talk about the future. Instead they obsess on how it now works and then hope they can apply that to the future...or past.

They claim that I cannot believe the future or par past are different without being able to prove it...which is ridiculous as no one knows. Yet they make piles of claims based on a belief nature will be or was the same. I used to think science was about knowing, and so when they claimed the bible was wrong it was somewhat troubling. I now know that science is about godless belief when it comes to the future and deep past.

I also learned a lot along the way. I got about 4 0r five idiotic warnings about supposed flaming in the last few days. One of them was for saying 'haha'!

Anyhow, I think we agree on the issue of the creed including a real creation that evolution cannot fit the bill.

I'd have to agree with most of that except the evidence, you are entitled to your own opinion but we not your own evidence. They are doing some kind of a full court press that is obviously one sided, hopefully it will run it's course. Science is a a pretty meticulous methodology but when it comes to analyzing evidence as an end product there are a lot of limitations and history is one of them. What is very interesting to me is skepticism toward the New Testament would seem to have been abandoned. I think they have retreated into what they believe is the last strong hold for naturalistic reasoning, that is a mistake. Darwinism has gotten into everything from the eugenics of Oliver Wendel Holmes, to the social Darwinism of the Scopes monkey trial to the mutation plus selection mantra of modern Darwinians. I know their history, I know their philosophy and I know what they appeal to as history and Genetics has never been user friendly for Darwinians.

The culture wars are over, I've seen the debate wane and recede for a couple of years. It used to be vigorously intellectual and deeply scientific, rich in philosophical inference and ripe with insight. Now it's hard to find anyone who is informed on the issues, you get a lot of pedantic corrections but introducing crucial source material is generally a waste of time, it's simply ignored. Fossils have always been a tough topic to get going and after years of looking into it I found out why, the fossil evidence has been so misrepresented all you really have to do is present the evidence and the argument writes itself. In comparative genomics you can't get a discussion started on the indels, there is no explanation for how they got their so evolutionists wont touch them with a ten foot poll. Brain related genes was the biggest one so far, I found an article that described 60 brand new de novo (brand new) genes related to brain functions that would have had to happen. No one even took an interest.

This has never been about science, it comes down to supposition. The Nicene Creed makes it clear the God as Creator is foundational and links it inextricably to the Incarnation, another fact that is never addressed.

Stay focused and don't let them drag you down into mud slinging contests. It's been a rule of thumb for me for a long time now, when they focus on nothing but personal remarks it's because they have nothing else left. I could make a stronger argument for Darwinian evolution then anyone I've encountered for years, straight from the evidence. I could easily rearrange some of my theology to accommodate a naturalistic worldview with the exception of crucial miracles during redemptive history and with regards to divine revelation, backing it up with sound expositions of Scripture and scientific literature. What is truly puzzling is that I have so seldom encountered this when engaging with others of an opposing view point.

More then anything else I'm fascinated by the way they abandon the epistemology they pretend to defend. Very curious, very curious indeed.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Speedwell]

The real issue is whether or not the universe and life was the result of a miracle, God acting in time and space, or if exclusively naturalistic explanations cover everything.

The answer, of course, is both.

 

[mark kennedy]

The answer, of course, is both.

No it's not

 

[Speedwell]

No it's not

Why not? It's entirely possible metaphysically.