Creation

[Jet Black]

By saying that Creation= God? Most Christians agree that God created they may differ on how.

By saying that Creation= One God? Most Christians agree that there is only one God that created.

So how does it make all Christians Creationists?

Atheists=no God
Creationist=One God

emphasis mine. note that many non creationist christians also think there is One God. Perhaps it is just your wording, and you don't actually include christian evolutionists in that argument, but I found the whole post led to this impression.

 

[h2whoa]

One thing I do know is that you can be a Christian and believe in Evolution. Those who make the terms Christian and Creationist interchangable are not correct to do so.

There is a difference between Faith and blind faith...

H2

 

[Mistermystery]

Make it up for ourselves? That is not necessary.

Yes it is necessary, silly. The act of creation has nothing to do with involving a deity, because it's something you should make up for yourself. God is by your definition not testable, not seeable, and not reachable, therefor it's only something you believe in by pure faith.

The act of creation is a verb and therefor it also doesn't involve automatically a deity. If you want to artibute creation (as in the act and the product) to a deity that's fine with me, but it's not possible to put it in any diffrent contest.

Yes and no.

yes and yes. Unless you can explain what I've written is incorrectly your arguments are hereby voided.

Except the op was asking creationists personally and personally I do not consider myself a theistic evolutionist nor do I fit under the standard creationist model.

You are giving an incomplete list by saying that every crhristian is a creationist. While that is very wrong.

 

[caravelair]

If you think that living matter can come from life-less matter, then make a hunk of plastic spring forth flowers, or an empty cup spring forther grass. It doesnt work. Therefore Abiogenesis is rediculous and un-scientific.

if you think coffee can be made by mixing water and granular crystals, then mix some water and sand together and make some coffee. it doesn't work. therefore instant coffee doesn't exist. it is rediculous and un-scientific.

 

[Oncedeceived]

emphasis mine. note that many non creationist christians also think there is One God. Perhaps it is just your wording, and you don't actually include christian evolutionists in that argument, but I found the whole post led to this impression.

Okay I understand your point although that is not really what I was getting at.

The atheist/Creationist link wasn't drawn in the OP yet I felt it was present behind the question so I mentioned that Atheists don't believe in God/Gods and that Creationists do. That it sometimes is a difference that becomes prominent in the viewpoints held.

So I will say this instead:

I as a Creationist believe in one God. I hold to my view without advocating the views of other Christians or other Creationists. Righty o'?

 

[Oncedeceived]

One thing I do know is that you can be a Christian and believe in Evolution. Those who make the terms Christian and Creationist interchangable are not correct to do so.

There is a difference between Faith and blind faith...

H2

Well I do not want to put labels on people, Christian/Creationist or force a defination on anyone. I do have a hard time understanding how one can be a Christian and not believe that God created the universe. Maybe you would like to share your view of that with me?

There is a difference between Faith and blind faith but how does that relate to our discussion?

In fact, let me tell you why I think that both camps (ID and DD) have both faith and blind faith.

I'll start with ID since that is what I hold as my position. With many ID adherents, the creation sequence is determined by definitions and interpretations from the past. Blind faith comes in when they hold their views without going any further. They won't consider anything else and refuse to address what possibilities there maybe otherwise. Blind faith has its place and time but in this position it is best not to argue or defend such a position. Blind faith is non-defensible. It can be very true, is scriptural and is sometimes needed to further the relationship with God. So in a Christian worldview, it is nothing out of the ordinary but in a secular worldivew it is considered only a "religious veiwpoint".

With DD blind faith is not so forgiving. Those who have blind faith in the Scientific worldview would be scorned and ridiculed, that is if the blind faith was something that other scientist didn't promote.

Blind faith in Science is used everyday with total acceptence when it is used in the field and holds no 'super' natural implications. Blind faith is used when Science bases its theories on the assumption that nature will behave in a predictive and ordered way. There is nothing in the DD worldview that claims that every force in nature will continue unchanged. The fact that it has done so in the past is a good indication but with DD it can't be stated absolutely. Blind faith can be as simple as faith that if you sit on a chair you can rely on it to hold you. You don't accertain prior to sitting on a chair that you have always sit on whether or not it will hold you. That is faith. DD has faith based on how the universe works and many times this faith is blind. DD was based on blind faith. DD was shown to be demonstrated in one area and so faith was founded for other areas using this faith which for all intent purposes was indeed blind. An evolutionist that is an atheist has blind faith that abiogenesis or some form of natural origins is true. That is blind faith. Prior to finding a crator the size and depth for impact of a meteorite the theory for the exinction of dinosaurs was taken as blind faith. Yes, it was a hypothesis but one that was used as probable even without the evidence to back it up.

So regardless of what worldview someone holds, there is faith involved and sometimes that faith is blind.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Yes it is necessary, silly. The act of creation has nothing to do with involving a deity, because it's something you should make up for yourself. God is by your definition not testable, not seeable, and not reachable, therefor it's only something you believe in by pure faith.

Ah, so you have a testable, seeable and reachable evidence that a Deity had nothing to do with the act of creation?

The act of creation is a verb and therefor it also doesn't involve automatically a deity. If you want to artibute creation (as in the act and the product) to a deity that's fine with me, but it's not possible to put it in any diffrent contest.

Any different contest?

yes and yes. Unless you can explain what I've written is incorrectly your arguments are hereby voided.

Well first please give me your viewpoint on the appearances of the life forms in the Cambrian period. Then maybe we can decide if my argument must be voided.

You are giving an incomplete list by saying that every crhristian is a creationist. While that is very wrong.

I hope I have clarified this in the response to Jet.

 

[PhantomLlama]

1. Abiogenesis is a theory and unprovable. Textboot definition of that is that living matter comes from life-less matter. This is scientifically impossible. It is a fundamental law of the universe that all life comes from a source. Life begets life. Humans beget humans. Animals beget animals, plants reproduce in their own way. All life comes from a source. Non-living matter cannot replicate nor propogate itself. Its a proven fact that all reproductive entities within reality are already part of living matter, not life-less matter.

If you think that living matter can come from life-less matter, then make a hunk of plastic spring forth flowers, or an empty cup spring forther grass. It doesnt work. Therefore Abiogenesis is rediculous and un-scientific. Also, Abiogenesis doesnt define where the life-less matter initially came from, hence, this argument is destroyed instantly. Theories of existence need to be proven from all angles, not just one. All questions need to be answered and abiogenesis doesnt even begin to do so.

This idea of 'heavier than air flying machines' is unprovable. It is scientifically impossible. It is a fundamental law of the universe that heavier than their medium fall down in a gravity well.

If you think heavier than air machines can fly, then make my car travel to Jupiter, or my washing machine to Alpha Centauri. It doesn't work. Therefore heavier-than-air flying machines are ridiculous and unscientific. Also, your ideas for such a device don't explain where the air initially came from, hence, this idea is disproved instantly.

 

[h2whoa]

Well I do not want to put labels on people, Christian/Creationist or force a defination on anyone. I do have a hard time understanding how one can be a Christian and not believe that God created the universe. Maybe you would like to share your view of that with me?

No, I totally agree with you that God created the Universe. But I believe that the laws of science/nature that we see in action are His way of making things work. That's why I think Evolution and Christianity can exist together. Evolution was just a mechanism that God used. But it still happened. As has been said before science is about the how and Christianity is about the why.

There is a difference between Faith and blind faith but how does that relate to our discussion?

It relates because there are creationists out there who will deny what science can actually show. This is blind faith in my opinion. I have faith that God created the Universe but that he made it work with science. Not that the Earth is 6,000 years old and dinosaurs and humans lived together.

Blind faith has its place and time but in this position it is best not to argue or defend such a position.

I can live with that.

With DD blind faith is not so forgiving. Those who have blind faith in the Scientific worldview would be scorned and ridiculed, that is if the blind faith was something that other scientist didn't promote.

Blind faith in Science is used everyday with total acceptence when it is used in the field and holds no 'super' natural implications. Blind faith is used when Science bases its theories on the assumption that nature will behave in a predictive and ordered way.

Yes there are people in the science community who are totally inflexible to change. We see it a lot. But generally these people are considered "dinosaurs" (excuse the context). We accept that nature (let's not go into physics here, just stick with evolution) behaves in an ordered way because it is seen to time and time again. Things may seem disordered close up but if you look at things on a larger scale (and to do that sometimes you also have to look at the very small: such as molecular biology) there is an order to things. This makes sense even from a theistic point of view. Why would God make a totally random and disorganised world?? I've said in other posts that when you study in depth the sheer intricacy of how life works (molecular genetics, evolution) it just makes God's work seem all the more amazing.

H2

 

[Mekkala]

If you think that living matter can come from life-less matter, then make a hunk of plastic spring forth flowers, or an empty cup spring forther grass. It doesnt work. Therefore Abiogenesis is rediculous and un-scientific.

If you think that a machine can use explosions to make a car move, then make a bucket of gasoline drive a car, or a stick of dynamite power a truck. It doesnt [sic] work. Therefore Internal Combustion is rediculous [sic] and un-scientific.

 

[Oncedeceived]

No, I totally agree with you that God created the Universe. But I believe that the laws of science/nature that we see in action are His way of making things work. That's why I think Evolution and Christianity can exist together. Evolution was just a mechanism that God used. But it still happened. As has been said before science is about the how and Christianity is about the why.


It relates because there are creationists out there who will deny what science can actually show. This is blind faith in my opinion. I have faith that God created the Universe but that he made it work with science. Not that the Earth is 6,000 years old and dinosaurs and humans lived together.


I can live with that.


Yes there are people in the science community who are totally inflexible to change. We see it a lot. But generally these people are considered "dinosaurs" (excuse the context). We accept that nature (let's not go into physics here, just stick with evolution) behaves in an ordered way because it is seen to time and time again. Things may seem disordered close up but if you look at things on a larger scale (and to do that sometimes you also have to look at the very small: such as molecular biology) there is an order to things. This makes sense even from a theistic point of view. Why would God make a totally random and disorganised world?? I've said in other posts that when you study in depth the sheer intricacy of how life works (molecular genetics, evolution) it just makes God's work seem all the more amazing.

H2

So where exactly do you find fault with what I am saying? I see nothing that contridicts what you are saying.

 

[h2whoa]

So where exactly do you find fault with what I am saying? I see nothing that contridicts what you are saying.

I believe it was you who decided to contest my original post...

My original post was saying that one could still be a Christian and believe in evolution. You then decided to pick me up on my post.

H2

 

[Jet Black]

I as a Creationist believe in one God. I hold to my view without advocating the views of other Christians or other Creationists. Righty o'?

okie dokie. how are you defining creationist then?

 

[Oncedeceived]

okie dokie. how are you defining creationist then?

Personally? As a literal creation event depicted in Genesis1.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I believe it was you who decided to contest my original post...

My original post was saying that one could still be a Christian and believe in evolution. You then decided to pick me up on my post.

H2

Ah yes, right you are. In your post it sounded like you were saying that to believe in a literal creation as depicted in Genesis one would need to have blind faith which is what I was arguing against.

 

[nyjbarnes]

By saying that Creation= God? Most Christians agree that God created they may differ on how.

By saying that Creation= One God? Most Christians agree that there is only one God that created.

So how does it make all Christians Creationists?

The OP wasn't that fuzzy. Since I was the framer, I think I would know. The original intent was to get at the essence of a lot of these arguments which boil down to creation can't disprove evolution and evolution can't disprove creation.

But if you take my facts with my reasoning and logic, you can disprove evolution. But if you take E's facts and reasoning and logic then you can disprove the creation story.

Here's what I would like to see, a literal interpretation of the Bible disproving creation. If you can do that then you would have my vote. I'll admit there has been some interesting arguments and evidence presented. But one of the most important that no one has answered yet was posted on this thread....


According to evolution and abiogenesis there had to have been death before even an allegorical Adam. Well, there wasn't any. So what do you say about that?

 

[nyjbarnes]

This idea of 'heavier than air flying machines' is unprovable. It is scientifically impossible. It is a fundamental law of the universe that heavier than their medium fall down in a gravity well.

If you think heavier than air machines can fly, then make my car travel to Jupiter, or my washing machine to Alpha Centauri. It doesn't work. Therefore heavier-than-air flying machines are ridiculous and unscientific. Also, your ideas for such a device don't explain where the air initially came from, hence, this idea is disproved instantly.

This is just stupidity reaching new heights. Gravity is still at work, yet it is a defined force, only capable of so much pull. With enough force I can escape its pull. For another example, I can dunk a basketball. I am 6'3" tall. From the tip of my fingertips to a standard basketball goal it is 24". Then I have 6" more to get the ball over the rim. That makes my lift 30"...
But gravity is still at work, despite my ability to escape it's pull for a short time, it still works on me. So your argument, albeit well developed is strawman ( I cringe at using the term) but that's what it is....

 

[Arikay]

So you basically want creationism to disprove creation? If so, then that is impossible by definition of the words.

 

[Burning Bush]

Creationism has nothing to do with the belief in God in the sense that believing in God and the Bible mean believing in Creationism.

Creationism is the belief that the Creation was literal. That makes you a Creationists. Believing in the Creation doesn't make one a Creationist. One could believe in the Creation in the sense that the Bible's being poetic about the mechanism that brought about the universe and man. If you believe that, you're not a Creationist. A Creationist is a specific group of people that think the universe was made in seven 24-hour days.

 

[Oncedeceived]

The OP wasn't that fuzzy. Since I was the framer, I think I would know. The original intent was to get at the essence of a lot of these arguments which boil down to creation can't disprove evolution and evolution can't disprove creation.

But if you take my facts with my reasoning and logic, you can disprove evolution. But if you take E's facts and reasoning and logic then you can disprove the creation story.

Here's what I would like to see, a literal interpretation of the Bible disproving creation. If you can do that then you would have my vote. I'll admit there has been some interesting arguments and evidence presented. But one of the most important that no one has answered yet was posted on this thread....


According to evolution and abiogenesis there had to have been death before even an allegorical Adam. Well, there wasn't any. So what do you say about that?

There wasn't any? What do you base this on? Can you give me scriptural evidence that there was no death before Adam?