Creationism, Darwinism and Natural History

[Calminian]

I studied Genesis years before I got into these debates. What I was getting is that the entire narrative is from the perspective of the 'face of the earth' or the surface of the world as the events transpired:

And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. (Genesis 1:2)​

When God is creating the land masses and the separation of water from sky, land from water...etc, God is still creating but it's not the 'bara' creation, it's from some previously existing material. This is used in the creation account only of the original creation of the heavens and the earth (Genesis 1:1), the creation of living creatures (Gen. 1:21) and man (Gen. 1:27). The only doctrinal relevance is God as Creator obviously since he is the primary mover (first cause) of all creation (Romans 1:18-21, Hebrews 1:1, John 1:1).

The discussion in Romans 5 specifically identifies Adam as the one who brought sin into the human condition.

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned (Romans 5:12)​

So their are two doctrines inextricably linked to the creation, life and original sin. When looking at evolution as natural history I found a strong contradiction between what the secular world was saying and what the New Testament establishes as sound doctrine. No where in the New Testament is there the slightest allusion to the age of the earth. That is what I mean when I say it's not important, the earth and the universe can be very old and it has no bearing on Christian theism whatsoever. Creation and original sin are entirely different matters.



The picture is one of darkness and water covering the earth. God separates the sky from the land, land from the water...etc, to prepare the surface of the earth for life. Like I said, the perspective of the narrative is from the surface of the earth.



But it doesn't say that, it simply says that, 'God made the stars also'. If God were creating the sun, moon and stars during creation week it seems reasonable that the writer would indicate that by using 'bara'. That's not what I think is going on there, I think they were already created just as the earth was already created. When the earth is prepared for life the sunlight as well as the moon and stars finally can be seen from the surface.

While I don't by the mantra of TEs and other critics that it's all figurative, the fact is that figurative language is the literary style. That is, at least, what I am getting from the text.



If God has already created the heavens and the earth then they are already filled with celestial objects.

4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.

5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?

Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? Or who shut up the sea with doors, when it brake forth, as if it had issued out of the womb? When I made the cloud the garment thereof, and thick darkness a swaddlingband for it, And brake up for it my decreed place, and set bars and doors, And said, Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further: and here shall thy proud waves be stayed? (Job 38:6=11)​

This is another account of creation, the foundational construction of the earth in preparation for life. The picture is thick clouds and water covering the face of the earth. When the spirit hovers over the surface it's covered in water and darkness. On day 4 the stars emerge as we see them today, not that they didn't exist before day 4 but because they couldn't be seen clearly, if at all.



Creation week is an expansion of the account in Genesis 1. Scholars are pretty much agreed that there are two accounts there, one is general and the other more specific so the distinction exists naturally in the text. The fact that no major doctrine is effected means that what cosmologists and geologists are telling us about the age of the earth is irrelevant to the clear testimony of Scripture.

It's like contradictions in the New Testament regarding the order of events, specifically, who entered the tomb first. In places the accounts contradict one another but it has no real bearing on the theology. Now if one account says he was found alive and the other says he was dead, well, there's a problem.



I'm simply telling you that for me it was never a problem to being with.



Agreed

Grace and peace,
Mark

Okay, let me run this by you a different way.

Moses puts everything into six days—the heavens earth sea and this is key—all that is in them (Ex. 20:11). The stars are in the heavens, as are the sun and moon, as are clouds, etc. The heavens biblically are the vastness that is above the land. That has to include the stars (Gen. 15:5, Deut. 4:19, Judg. 5:20, Job 22:12).

Now the expanse in verse 6-7 is what God called the heavens (v. 8).

If you try to put stars in a different realm than the heavens, you violate a whole host of biblical texts. For this reason, I've come to concluded that the expanse of verses 6-7 has to be cosmological in scope rather than just atmospheric.

Now, you say that if the heavens existed in verse 1 then the stars must have also, but that assumes the heavens were initially fully formed, and that's clearly not the case. Just as land was once unformed and unfilled, so also was heaven. It existed in verse 1 but was expanded in verses 6-7, and filled in verses 14-18. Likewise earth existed in verse 1 but was formed in verse 9 and filled in verses 20-31.

We now understand that space is a tangible dimensional finite thing. Scripture seems to be saying that upon creation, it was unexpanded.

But the language is what's inescapable for me. First God mention that the earth exists unformed and unfilled, and then proceeds explain the process in which was formed (day 3) and filled (days 5-6).

The creation of heaven follows the same exact pattern. First God mentions that it exists, and then proceeds to explain the process in which was was formed (day 2) and filled (day 4).

I don't think it's possible to escape that.

I admit it would be cool if there was a way for the cosmos to proceed earth by billions of years, but I don't see a way to reconcile that with the text.

 

[Calminian]

this is what i believe at the moment, until i get some better evidence. the creation myths are passed on from one culture to another, otherwise you'd have something more like modern cosmology; it could have been simplified down to its basics.
i see genesis 1 describing a disc that comes out of the primordial ocean, another disc of water, after the waters have been separated. there is a dome on top, of solid brass, and under the dome is placed the sun, moon and stars. above the dome is the upper waters, and in the dome are windows that let the rain out; the gates of heaven.

Well the only problem is nothing like that is so much as even mentioned in Genesis or the Bible. In fact the term earth (erets) merely means land. The earth of scripture can't mean a globe or a flat disc, as that would imply it was a land sea unit, and scripture always separates those two. We're working of completely different nomenclature in scripture. There is not term for planet or globe in the Bible.

Ex. 20:11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them...

The flat disc planet theory can't possibly be reconciled with scripture.

The same is true with the solid dome theory. The firmament is defined in Genesis 1:8 as the heavens and the heavens are clearly defined as an expanse all throughout scripture—something the clouds, birds and angels freely move through.

I realize the concepts existed among some ancient cultures, but that can't be blamed on scripture which is much older, especially the genesis texts.

but much of the OT has God stretching out the heavens; that isn't part of the same genesis 1 model, as some atheist critics claim.

And guess where they got that idea of expanding the heavens. Genesis 1!

Gen. 1:6 Then God said, “Let there be an aexpanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.” 7 And God made the 1expanse, and separated the waters which were below the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse; and it was so. 8 And God called the expanse heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day. ​

The lower half of these water become the earth and sea (v. 9-10). We are not told what the upper waters become, or if they're still up there waiting to be used for something.

 

[mark kennedy]

Okay, let me run this by you a different way.

Moses puts everything into six days—the heavens earth sea and this is key—all that is in them (Ex. 20:11). The stars are in the heavens, as are the sun and moon, as are clouds, etc. The heavens biblically are the vastness that is above the land. That has to include the stars (Gen. 15:5, Deut. 4:19, Judg. 5:20, Job 22:12).

Now the expanse in verse 6-7 is what God called the heavens (v. 8).

If you try to put stars in a different realm than the heavens, you violate a whole host of biblical texts. For this reason, I've come to concluded that the expanse of verses 6-7 has to be cosmological in scope rather than just atmospheric.

...Look up at the heavens and count the stars... (Gen 15:5)
,,,look up to the sky and see the sun, the moon and the stars...(Deut. 4:19)
...They fought from heaven; the stars in their courses...(Judges 5:20)
...Is not God in the height of heaven? and behold the height of the stars...(Job 22:12)

I can see how the stars are in the heavens, makes sense. I can see how verses 6-7 are cosmological in the sense that the stars are in the heavens. What I don't think you are getting at is the 4th day God is not actually creating them. In order for them to be created space would have had to be empty all that time. It doesn't make a lot of sense, he makes the vast void of space and nothing in it but the Earth. What is more it doesn't say that's when God created them, not in the 'bara' sense.

I see no violation of the text, none whatsoever and like I said before, no doctrine is remotely effected.

Now, you say that if the heavens existed in verse 1 then the stars must have also, but that assumes the heavens were initially fully formed, and that's clearly not the case. Just as land was once unformed and unfilled, so also was heaven. It existed in verse 1 but was expanded in verses 6-7, and filled in verses 14-18. Likewise earth existed in verse 1 but was formed in verse 9 and filled in verses 20-31.

It doesn't make that distinction, it simply says that God created the heavens and the earth. There is no indication that God created the heavens without stars, or our solar system without a sun, planets or our own moon. It wasn't expanded in subsequent verses, it was made visible from the surface of the earth which is consistent with this particular literary style. After the creation by divine fiat in Genesis 1 nothing of the created universe is ever created ex nihileo. The only two times subsequently there is creation in this regards is in the creation of life. The Genesis account is pretty specific about what is being created, when and how. There are specific terms used for special creation, 'bara' would be the word for the stars being created, but they weren't created after Genesis1:1, just revealed.

We now understand that space is a tangible dimensional finite thing. Scripture seems to be saying that upon creation, it was unexpanded.

I don't think so but let's move on.

But the language is what's inescapable for me. First God mention that the earth exists unformed and unfilled, and then proceeds explain the process in which was formed (day 3) and filled (days 5-6).

The language is exactly why I disagree.

The creation of heaven follows the same exact pattern. First God mentions that it exists, and then proceeds to explain the process in which was was formed (day 2) and filled (day 4).

I don't think it's possible to escape that.

I admit it would be cool if there was a way for the cosmos to proceed earth by billions of years, but I don't see a way to reconcile that with the text.

I don't know if it's cool but it's certainly permissible given the use of language. I am aware that many of my YECs are of the same opinion including AIG and some others, it really doesn't give me any cause for concern. I had this figured out well before the age of the earth or the cosmos was of any interest to me. As a matter of fact arguments for and against an old earth lack any real relevance as far as I can tell.

That's why my interest has been genetics, human evolution and especially the size and complexity of the human brain as compared to apes. That's because there are only two doctrinal issues from a New Testament perspective, God as Creator and the creation of life.

I appreciate the exposition, you seem to have given it considerable thought and your views are consistent with mainstream YECs as far as I can tell. I also happen to be YEC but for other reason, the most important being that there is no definitive proof that the dating methods are valid over the span of million or billions of years. I am and will remain, YEC by default and the so called evidence of an old earth and cosmos leaves me completely unconvinced.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

this is what i believe at the moment, until i get some better evidence. the creation myths are passed on from one culture to another, otherwise you'd have something more like modern cosmology; it could have been simplified down to its basics.

That may well be true of other cultures but the Hebrew culture only existed because God performed miracles establishing it, starting with Isaac, continuing through the Exodus and performed again at the foot of Sinai. There isn't another culture that has preserved their religion, language, bloodline and sacred texts like the Hebrews. It is unique in all of human history that all those features of a culture are preserved for 2,000 years without having a homeland and then being established as a nation again.

This is one of the most convincing proof of the Scriptures being the genuine article and canon of faith. God was not whispering to some mystic in a cave, God's word went forth in power and was preserved throughout human history.

i see genesis 1 describing a disc that comes out of the primordial ocean, another disc of water, after the waters have been separated. there is a dome on top, of solid brass, and under the dome is placed the sun, moon and stars. above the dome is the upper waters, and in the dome are windows that let the rain out; the gates of heaven.

this model is still believed by the flat earth society. who knows, perhaps the earth is a flat disc surrounded by ice, but i doubt it. i think that bits of the NT and OT still have a flat earth understanding; Revelation and Daniel.

I don't know where you get that perception but you didn't get it from the Hebrew Scriptures.

but much of the OT has God stretching out the heavens; that isn't part of the same genesis 1 model, as some atheist critics claim.

I really don't know what that is all about. The universe is expanding but when the Scriptures talk about the heavens is always brief and God is always the subject. You won't find any cosmology or astronomy in the Bible except for the initial creation it's irrelevant

 

[Calminian]

...Look up at the heavens and count the stars... (Gen 15:5)
,,,look up to the sky and see the sun, the moon and the stars...(Deut. 4:19)
...They fought from heaven; the stars in their courses...(Judges 5:20)
...Is not God in the height of heaven? and behold the height of the stars...(Job 22:12)

I can see how the stars are in the heavens, makes sense. I can see how verses 6-7 are cosmological in the sense that the stars are in the heavens. What I don't think you are getting at is the 4th day God is not actually creating them. In order for them to be created space would have had to be empty all that time. It doesn't make a lot of sense, he makes the vast void of space and nothing in it but the Earth. What is more it doesn't say that's when God created them, not in the 'bara' sense.

The stars formed on day 4 didn't have to be created in the bara sense. Once space exists, matter also does, and it's merely a matter of forming things out of matter that already exists. In fact, all the matter necessary would have existed at the initial creation in verse 1. Those waters were perhaps the matter necessary for the entire universe. In fact scripture expressly says God formed the land and sea out of a portion of these primordial waters.

After the creation by divine fiat in Genesis 1 nothing of the created universe is ever created ex nihileo.

I've never disputed them point, in fact I've affirmed it. Do you think I've denied this?

As a matter of fact arguments for and against an old earth lack any real relevance as far as I can tell.

There are many doctrinal concerns relating to the age of the earth. The cause of death for one. Was death in men and animals the result of the sin of Adam, or was it part of the original very good design? Is pain and suffering part of the curse, or part of the original very good design.

The theology of Gen. 1:31 alone is as significant as any theological statement in scripture.

All doctrine in scripture goes back to Genesis and has its foundations in Genesis.

I am and will remain, YEC by default and the so called evidence of an old earth and cosmos leaves me completely unconvinced.

I would differ from you greatly on this. I would say the true blessing of the YEC position is theological. The entrance of sin through the first Adam, the curse of death placed on the world, the payment for sin and the conquering of death by the last Adam (Christ). That is the essence of the gospel. In an old earth model, this simple order of things is jumbled, as death precedes sin by millions of years. This also completely undermines the significance of the God's moral declaration of the goodness of the universe in Genesis 1:31. The heart of the age of the earth debate is not science, but indeed theology. The blessing of God's revelations about our origins is a theological blessing in that it gives up very rich theological understandings.

If YEC is not of any theological significance, it's really not worth studying. But the theological implications are infinite.

 

[mark kennedy]

The stars formed on day 4 didn't have to be created in the bara sense. Once space exists, matter also does, and it's merely a matter of forming things out of matter that already exists. In fact, all the matter necessary would have existed at the initial creation in verse 1. Those waters were perhaps the matter necessary for the entire universe. In fact scripture expressly says God formed the land and sea out of a portion of these primordial waters.

The only things that must be created in the 'bara' sense is the heavens and the earth, life and man. That's not my opinion, those are the only instances of the word in Genesis 1.

I've never disputed them point, in fact I've affirmed it. Do you think I've denied this?

I think we have some kind of a difference of opinion here, not sure of the weight of the difference but no, I don't think you've actually denied it.

There are many doctrinal concerns relating to the age of the earth. The cause of death for one. Was death in men and animals the result of the sin of Adam, or was it part of the original very good design? Is pain and suffering part of the curse, or part of the original very good design.

When it comes to animals I have no idea, the Scriptures are silent on the issue. We do know that sin and death come into the human condition specifically because of Adam.

The theology of Gen. 1:31 alone is as significant as any theological statement in scripture.

Of course it is.

All doctrine in scripture goes back to Genesis and has its foundations in Genesis.

I absolutely agree.

I would differ from you greatly on this. I would say the true blessing of the YEC position is theological. The entrance of sin through the first Adam, the curse of death placed on the world, the payment for sin and the conquering of death by the last Adam (Christ). That is the essence of the gospel. In an old earth model, this simple order of things is jumbled, as death precedes sin by millions of years. This also completely undermines the significance of the God's moral declaration of the goodness of the universe in Genesis 1:31. The heart of the age of the earth debate is not science, but indeed theology. The blessing of God's revelations about our origins is a theological blessing in that it gives up very rich theological understandings.

Which is exactly where we disagree, I see no connection of the age of the earth with sin and death. God creates the heavens and the earth, then during creation week creates man. So far we know that sin and death has not entered humanity, the tree of life is available and we do not have any testimony regarding death and animals. I really don't see any connection at all.

If YEC is not of any theological significance, it's really not worth studying. But the theological implications are infinite.

I don't know about significance but it's not linked to essential doctrine. The creation of life is and especially the lineage from Adam. If Adam had ancestors then there's a problem. If there are billions of years between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 there is no problem and if it's less then a minute until creation week starts, there is still no problem.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[elopez]

Darwinism is not one long argument against YEC. It is a theory on the origin of species. Nothing more than that. The theory can be used in a manner of arguing against YEC, but that is not it's main purpose.

We can say God created ex nihilo in respect to the universe, but I don't think we can justify in saying the same in respect to man. This would be true even according to YEC, as I presume one such adherent would think Adam was formed from the ground as it is stated, rather than from "nothing." See, without the universe there is nothing -- no matter, no energy, no elements, just God existing. That is why we say there is a creation of the universe ex nihilo. Though, there are pre - existing materials of which could be used to create Adam, such as the ground (according to YEC).

Creation cannot be denied, yes. Though, what creation means has no necessary meaning that if denied one is no longer a Christian. In other words, one must believe God created the universe, earth, and all life in order to be considered a Christian, however, one does not have to believe God created everything in six days, or by means of evolution, in order to be a Christian.

As for YEC being relevant to evidential apologetics, what competent or otherwise satisfactory evidence is there that the earth is 6,000 years old? I would argue that using Genesis as evidence is near circular, and at worst completely incompetent. That said, is there any other evidence to point to?

 

[Papias]

mark wrote:

You mentioned Howard Van Till, I had to look him up. I found this rather disturbing statement about him:

Howard J. Van Till is an emeritus professor of physics at Calvin College. According to Ronald L. Numbers he is a devout Christian who sees little or no evidence of God in nature and whose view is a good example of "theistic evolution". Howard J. Van Till
​

I agree that statement is disturbing, and I myself certainly see God in nature. However, being that the statement is secondhand, I don't know if it is accurate or not. I have read the "three views" book, which includes a about a third of the book being by Van Till, and that didn't sound like the statement above.

Regardless - I didn't mention him to promote his views, I mentioned him as another person who uses a different name for "Theistic Evolution", while affirming your choice to use the term Theistic Evolution, because I agree it is most well known.

The question that comes to mind at this point is, are you an atheist?

Wow, an unprovoked attack on me after I spend a post supporting your actions. I guess that's a message to anyone who would consider helping you.


Papias

 

[WisdomTree]

Can I say "Augustinian Instant Creation"?

 

[Erth]

I believe that God created the universe. But I am not a Creationist. I do not believe in the Creationist doctrine of total separateness between man and other things in God's method of creation, nor do I believe the dogma that similarity must not be interpreted as shared ancestry. I do not believe that the Bible supports Creationism, but on the contrary it is my opinion that the Bible refutes Creationism. Scientific theories are usually not designed to be anti-Christian. Our faculties are not so poor that things in the natural world have to appear to us to be completely different from what they are really like.

My opinion could be described as a theistic evolution, but I am not an evolutionist. My interpretation of the Bible does not labour on Darwinism, nor is it dictated by science how I should understand the Bible. I do not need to score points with the scientific community (or with atheists for that matter) in my understanding of the Christian faith.

My Christianity is not liberal, individualistic or self-made.

 

[Calminian]

...Which is exactly where we disagree, I see no connection of the age of the earth with sin and death. God creates the heavens and the earth, then during creation week creates man. So far we know that sin and death has not entered humanity, the tree of life is available and we do not have any testimony regarding death and animals. I really don't see any connection at all.

Paul said this in regard to the entire creation.

Rom. 8:21 that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God. 22 We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. ​

This bondage and decay and pain were not part of the original plan (Gen. 1:31). This is why Gen. 1:31 is so significant. When you look at creation week, there is no hint of bondage or pain. Animals are given the blessing of procreation and many others blessings.

Isaiah speaks of a time when animals will be restored to a time where there is no predation among them, and speaks of a return a vegetation diet among the great predators. This also will make little sense if predation was part of the original design as you're implying.

Is. 11:6 The wolf will live with the lamb,
the leopard will lie down with the goat,
the calf and the lion and the yearling together;
and a little child will lead them.

Is. 11:7 The cow will feed with the bear,
their young will lie down together,
and the lion will eat straw like the ox.

Is. 65:25 The wolf and the lamb will feed together,
and the lion will eat straw like the ox,
but dust will be the serpent’s food.

They will neither harm nor destroy
on all my holy mountain,”
says the LORD.​

Gen. 1:31 gives us no room for millions of years, or even a few weeks of death and struggle in any part of the world. Death and struggle among animals is either a very good thing, or it's harmful and destructive. There's no middle ground.

And the above description of a restoration is not even the full restoration that is the new heaven and earth. It's merely a time when some things are restored to resemble the original time. But if death and struggle among animals was a "very good" thing from the beginning, this makes little sense.

I don't know about significance but it's not linked to essential doctrine. The creation of life is and especially the lineage from Adam. If Adam had ancestors then there's a problem. If there are billions of years between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 there is no problem and if it's less then a minute until creation week starts, there is still no problem.

I would agree creation is not essential doctrine in the sense that one loses their salvation. Man can be weak on many aspects of his faith, and God will still accept his faith. I've never argued that. Even such things as the virgin birth could be doubted and many other doctrines for that matter, and these will not affect the free gift giving by Christ.

But that's not to say there are great blessings attached to trusting God in all aspects of His revelation. My contention is not that the church is not saved, but that they are having a crisis of faith, and missing the blessing of trusting God. By faith we please God, and pleasing God is the ultimate blessing for man. I guess my passion on the subject is based on my desire for christians not to miss God's blessings.

 

[ChetSinger]

Isaiah speaks of a time when animals will be restored to a time where there is no predation among them, and speaks of a return a vegetation diet among the great predators. This also will make little sense if predation was part of the original design as you're implying...

...Gen. 1:31 gives us no room for millions of years, or even a few weeks of death and struggle in any part of the world. Death and struggle among animals is either a very good thing, or it's harmful and destructive. There's no middle ground.

And the above description of a restoration is not even the full restoration that is the new heaven and earth. It's merely a time when some things are restored to resemble the original time. But if death and struggle among animals was a "very good" thing from the beginning, this makes little sense.

This is one of the reasons I resist the long ages of evolution. I've seen predation in my own backyard, not to mention videos of events like an alligator killing a zebra or big cats ganging up on a baby hippo. Those sights are heartbreaking because the victims are dying in pain, terror, and hopelessness. And life in 99.99% of the world's history was supposedly like that?

 

[mark kennedy]

Paul said this in regard to the entire creation.

Rom. 8:21 that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God. 22 We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. ​

This bondage and decay and pain were not part of the original plan (Gen. 1:31). This is why Gen. 1:31 is so significant. When you look at creation week, there is no hint of bondage or pain. Animals are given the blessing of procreation and many others blessings.

Isaiah speaks of a time when animals will be restored to a time where there is no predation among them, and speaks of a return a vegetation diet among the great predators. This also will make little sense if predation was part of the original design as you're implying.

Is. 11:6 The wolf will live with the lamb,
the leopard will lie down with the goat,
the calf and the lion and the yearling together;
and a little child will lead them.

Is. 11:7 The cow will feed with the bear,
their young will lie down together,
and the lion will eat straw like the ox.

Is. 65:25 The wolf and the lamb will feed together,
and the lion will eat straw like the ox,
but dust will be the serpent’s food.

They will neither harm nor destroy
on all my holy mountain,”
says the LORD.​

Gen. 1:31 gives us no room for millions of years, or even a few weeks of death and struggle in any part of the world. Death and struggle among animals is either a very good thing, or it's harmful and destructive. There's no middle ground.

Excellent, I'm in agreement with you on predation, I've never thought it was part of the original creation. I disagree that 'there is no room for', years or weeks. Don't get me wrong, I realize that yours is a valid perspective on it and perhaps even the preferred interpretation given the immediate context. I still maintain that there is no reference to a timeline in the opening verse and creation week starts in verse two. The literary style does suggest that verse 1 is the overview, creation week an expansion and chapter 2 an even closer look at the creation of man.

It's not that I find your view contrary to mine, I just don't agree with it entirely.

And the above description of a restoration is not even the full restoration that is the new heaven and earth. It's merely a time when some things are restored to resemble the original time. But if death and struggle among animals was a "very good" thing from the beginning, this makes little sense.

Right.

I would agree creation is not essential doctrine in the sense that one loses their salvation. Man can be weak on many aspects of his faith, and God will still accept his faith. I've never argued that. Even such things as the virgin birth could be doubted and many other doctrines for that matter, and these will not affect the free gift giving by Christ.

For salvation the Scriptures are crystal clear about what it means to be saved. You hear the Gospel, you believe the message and are justified by faith, you receive the Holy Spirit who begins the sanctification of the believer, you bear fruit and fulfill the royal law, At final judgment you are found 'in Christ' an translated into His likeness.

Doctrine is another matter, When Paul says, 'What shall we say', what that means is what do we teach. Doctrine has to be learned by the disciple of the faith, taught by those equipped by the power of the Holy Spirit. What has been generally agreed by Christian scholars down through the ages as essential doctrine is represented in the Nicene Creed.

Nicene Creed

Notice that the Trinity, virgin birth, crucifixion, resurrection and final judgment are included. It's also important to realize that the canon of Scripture is spoken of in general terms, which is also essential doctrine. In the early church you had conversion, usually followed by water baptism indicating you were a disciple. Part of your discipleship would be to learn sound doctrine. Ultimately the believer is called to be a minister of the Gospel. I think it's important to realize that there is a difference between the requirements of being 'saved' and being a disciple.

I said all that to tell you this, creation is essential doctrine. The Scriptures are clear that to receive Christ as Savior and Lord is to worship Him as Creator:

In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe. (Hebrews 1:1,2)​

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. (John 1:1-3)​

Early in my Christian walk I studied the Bible, especially the New Testament. I struggled with the deity of Christ for some time, a couple of years as a matter of fact. I eventually seen it clearly but it was never easy for me. Because of that I have had well meaning Christians tell me that I was not a Christian at that time. I know better, I had entered fellowship with the Living God in the power of the Holy Spirit and have never walked alone in all that time.

When I started exploring Apologetics my interest was the history and credibility of the Scriptures. I struggled with that for years finally settling on the fact that the Scriptures are the best preserved and credible historical narratives from the ancient world, there is no close second.

Over time I started exploring Creationism (aka Creation Science), what drew me to it was the fact that unbelievers pointed all their big guns at it. They showed no signs of being interested in internal, external and bibliographical testing. They instead were focused on what the called the Theory of Evolution. The primary arguments were focused on two things, Geology and Biology. As I have explained in as much as I'm able, Geology was of little consequence to be doctrinally. You may have noticed, the Nicene Creed makes no mention of the age of the Earth. The original creation occupies the first line not just of the Nicene Creed but Hebrews and John's Gospel as well.

I focused exclusively on the creation of life since that is where the focus is Genesis 1. This is indicated by the use of 'bara', as I explained in my brief exposition of the word and it's natural context. Because of that the Apologetics I favor are an evidential approach to the origin of man, comparative genomics (Man and Chimp) and especially the Human brain. There was neither the time nor the means for the human brain to have evolved from that of apes and I can argue any evolutionist to a stand still easily from the scientific literature exclusively.

I hope you will forgive me for being so long winded. It's not often I have the opportunity to share these things with fellow Creationists. Regrettably, I have managed to spend the bulk of my time on here over the years combating Darwinian arguments. I would very much like to see an end to that being my focus and spend more time in fellowship with like minded believers.

But that's not to say there are great blessings attached to trusting God in all aspects of His revelation. My contention is not that the church is not saved, but that they are having a crisis of faith, and missing the blessing of trusting God. By faith we please God, and pleasing God is the ultimate blessing for man. I guess my passion on the subject is based on my desire for christians not to miss God's blessings.

Amen. I am with you heart and soul on that one.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

I believe that God created the universe. But I am not a Creationist.

That would make you a creationist in the doctrinal sense but apparently you are not a supporter of the modern brand of Creationism, aka Creation Science.

I do not believe in the Creationist doctrine of total separateness between man and other things in God's method of creation, nor do I believe the dogma that similarity must not be interpreted as shared ancestry.

The Scriptures and common sense would indicate that man is a steward of the Earth and all that is in it. I personally find the homology arguments of Darwinian evolution to be riddled with fallacious logic and gross inconsistencies. If you find them persuasive, go in peace I have no problem with you. I, on the other hand, find that there are requisite naturalistic assumptions that reject God as the cause of anything in creation going all the way back to the Big Bang. That's not dogma, that is exactly what Darwinism is designed to do and does with a vengeance. I am of the opinion that a defense of the Scriptures is in order.

I do not believe that the Bible supports Creationism, but on the contrary it is my opinion that the Bible refutes Creationism.

I would be interested in how that translates into an exposition.

Scientific theories are usually not designed to be anti-Christian. Our faculties are not so poor that things in the natural world have to appear to us to be completely different from what they are really like.

Scientific theories like the Theory of Evolution are neither anti-Christian nor are the anti-creation. Evolution as science is defined as, 'the change of alleles in populations over time'. I did not define it that way, Ernst Mayr did in what has come to be known as the Modern Synthesis. As natural history Darwinism which is neither a theory nor a science, rejects God as Creator or even as Designer. That approach redefines evolution as, 'the a priori assumption of universal common ancestry by exclusively naturalistic causes'. They do this without telling you that there are two definitions at work here, which is a fallacious approach to argumentation know as equivocation.

My opinion could be described as a theistic evolution, but I am not an evolutionist.

Theistic evolutionists are evolutionists, no getting around that. One who believes in creation is a Creationist in the doctrinal sense, there is some wiggle room and the approach to scientific evidence though.

My interpretation of the Bible does not labour on Darwinism, nor is it dictated by science how I should understand the Bible. I do not need to score points with the scientific community (or with atheists for that matter) in my understanding of the Christian faith.

My Christianity is not liberal, individualistic or self-made.

Sounds like a pretty standard Theistic Evolutionist point of view. I look forward to hearing more from you.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[NoPostDocFrock]

....I can argue any evolutionist to a stand still easily from the scientific literature exclusively.

You may think so. But observers have found your hand waving unconvincing. Indeed, you dodged the most basic requests for EVIDENCE for your various claims as well as simple requests for the #1 Best Evidence that the theory of evolution is flawed. You were also asked to summarize a Comprehensive Scientific Theory of Special Creation. (You claim that "creation science" is valid but won't demonstrate it in the most basic ways.)

Most of us don't confuse confident bluster with evidence and logical reasoning. And our continued confusion of the methodological naturalism of science with philosophical naturalism is compounded by YOUR equivocation fallacies surrounding the word "evolution". You may have been impressed with your performance here, but the comments from those recalling your past performances indicated otherwise.

 

[mark kennedy]

You may think so. But observers have found your hand waving unconvincing. Indeed, you dodged the most basic requests for EVIDENCE for your various claims as well as simple requests for the #1 Best Evidence that the theory of evolution is flawed.

First of all I'm not opposed to the Theory of Evolution as properly defined scientifically. I'm opposed to the 'a priori assumption of universal common descent by exclusively naturalistic means'. If you want to know what my #1 best evidence is, or at least the one I have yet to get an answer for that's tough but how about this one:

The 118-bp HAR1 region showed the most dramatically accelerated change, with an estimated 18 substitutions in the human lineage since the human–chimpanzee ancestor, compared with the expected 0.27 substitutions on the basis of the slow rate of change in this region in other amniotes. Only two bases (out of 118) are changed between chimpanzee and chicken, indicating that the region was present and functional in our ancestor at least 310 million years (Myr) ago. No orthologue of HAR1 was detected in the frog (Xenopus tropicalis), any of the available fish genomes (zebrafish, Takifugu and Tetraodon), or in any invertebrate lineage, indicating that it originated no more than about 400Myr ago (See FIGURE 2 from An RNA gene expressed during cortical development evolved rapidly in humans. (Nature, 14 September 2006)​

Why is it that this regulatory gene allows 2 substitutions in 400 million years, then about 2 million years ago, it gets 18?

Another one is where are the chimpanzee ancestors in the fossil record? I know where they are, they are in natural history museums marked HomoXXX.

Here's another good one, what happens when a mutation (point, insertion, deletion) occurs in a brain related gene? Invariably it's disease, disorder and death.

Your right about my critics though, they are obsessed with ad hominem attacks and catch phrases like 'handwaving'.

You were also asked to summarize a Comprehensive Scientific Theory of Special Creation. (You claim that "creation science" is valid but won't demonstrate it in the most basic ways.)

Your talking in generalities, 'creation' is first and foremost essential doctrine. Now if you are talking about Creation Science, (aka Creationism) in the modern sense I have suggested any number of them. The problem is that every comment made by a Creationist is immediately buried in an avalanche of personal attacks. These fallacious arguments occupy the bulk of the Darwinian arguments encountered in these and other boards.

If you wanted a model it would be about 4.000 years, starting with 8 people with pristine, or nearly pristine genomes. Same would hold true for the reptiles, avians and other mammals on board the Ark. My strongest argument against the Darwinian mythology is that there was neither the time nor the means for the human brain to have evolved from that of apes. I've also argued that the way that indels would have had to accumulate in the respective genomes of Chimpanzees and Humans since the split is astronomical. I have yet to field an actual counter argument that addresses the substance of most of the arguments.

Most of us don't confuse confident bluster with evidence and logical reasoning. And our continued confusion of the methodological naturalism of science with philosophical naturalism is compounded by YOUR equivocation fallacies surrounding the word "evolution". You may have been impressed with your performance here, but the comments from those recalling your past performances indicated otherwise.

I have found Darwinians, including the vast majority of TEs, guilty of one major fallacy, ad hominem attacks. The second one though not as popular is equally flawed, they equivocate two definitions of 'evolution'. One is the 'change of alleles in populations over time', the other is 'the a priori assumption of universal common descent by exclusively naturalistic means'.

I have never seen an evolutionist on these boards admit to the two aspects of evolution. Biology is about living systems, not dead ancestors. So it's wrong to pretend that your philosophy of natural history is the same thing as scientific epistemology and evolutionary biology. I would not bring it up so much if evolutionists had anything else to offer but they seldom do.

Doctrinally Theistic Evolution lacks any basic doctrinal clarity. They insist that the believe in God as Creator but never credit God with creating anything, He doesn't even get honorable mention as the Designer. The errors I have encountered in my discussions in this forum are staggering. They want to tell us that Adam is just another word for mankind and often that name is used in that way, in the Old Testament. In the New Testament it's always the individual in the Genesis account. Twice I have debated TEs formally with literally hundreds of exchanges in this forum. They make blatantly obvious errors like calling Creationism deism, which is the height of absurdity. I have done detailed expositional and exegetical analysis of the Genesis account of creation and they simply ignore it along with the relevant New Testament teachings regarding our origins.

Your post can only be described as yet another ad hominem attack. I'm not complaining, it tells me one thing in no uncertain terms. You have nothing else.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[Assyrian]

Paul said this in regard to the entire creation.

Rom. 8:21 that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God. 22 We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. ​

This bondage and decay and pain were not part of the original plan (Gen. 1:31). This is why Gen. 1:31 is so significant. When you look at creation week, there is no hint of bondage or pain. Animals are given the blessing of procreation and many others blessings.

Where does it say decay and pain were not part of the original plan? You seem to assume Paul was talking about the fall here, yet the work he keeps using in the passage is creation.

Isaiah speaks of a time when animals will be restored to a time where there is no predation among them, and speaks of a return a vegetation diet among the great predators. This also will make little sense if predation was part of the original design as you're implying.

Is. 11:6 The wolf will live with the lamb,
the leopard will lie down with the goat,
the calf and the lion and the yearling together;
and a little child will lead them.

Is. 11:7 The cow will feed with the bear,
their young will lie down together,
and the lion will eat straw like the ox.

Is. 65:25 The wolf and the lamb will feed together,
and the lion will eat straw like the ox,
but dust will be the serpent’s food.

They will neither harm nor destroy
on all my holy mountain,”
says the LORD.​

Where does Isaiah say this is a restoration?

Gen. 1:31 gives us no room for millions of years, or even a few weeks of death and struggle in any part of the world. Death and struggle among animals is either a very good thing, or it's harmful and destructive. There's no middle ground.

So when God commanded the OT sacrifices was this a very good thing, or harmful and destructive? When God says he provides prey for young lions and ravens, is what he is doing good or bad?

And the above description of a restoration is not even the full restoration that is the new heaven and earth. It's merely a time when some things are restored to resemble the original time. But if death and struggle among animals was a "very good" thing from the beginning, this makes little sense.

Maybe it make little sense because you misunderstand the passages in Isaiah? This is part of an apocalyptic image of the future, not a description of the past. It is imagery that speaks of the messiah sprouting out of a tree stump and beating the earth with a stick coming out of his mouth Isaiah 11:2&4. Are you sure the animals in this highly symbolic passage are even literal?

 

[Papias]

NPDfrock wrote:

Originally Posted by mark kennedy

....I can argue any evolutionist to a stand still easily from the scientific literature exclusively.
​

You may think so. But observers have found your hand waving unconvincing. Indeed, you dodged the most basic requests for EVIDENCE for your various claims as well as simple requests for the #1 Best Evidence that the theory of evolution is flawed. You were also asked to summarize a Comprehensive Scientific Theory of Special Creation. (You claim that "creation science" is valid but won't demonstrate it in the most basic ways.)

Most of us don't confuse confident bluster with evidence and logical reasoning. And our continued confusion of the methodological naturalism of science with philosophical naturalism is compounded by YOUR equivocation fallacies surrounding the word "evolution". You may have been impressed with your performance here, but the comments from those recalling your past performances indicated otherwise.

Yep.

mark wrote:

My strongest argument against the Darwinian mythology is that there was neither the time nor the means for the human brain to have evolved from that of apes.

And it has been shown that you do so by hiding evidence, avoiding explanations, and making unsupported statements. We can go over the past threads, you know.

I've also argued that the way that indels would have had to accumulate in the respective genomes of Chimpanzees and Humans since the split is astronomical. I have yet to field an actual counter argument that addresses the substance of most of the arguments.

Oh yeah, except that an actual geneticist, who is an expert in chimp and human brains from a genetic standpoint explained in the video I posted about how easy it is for human brains to have evolved from chimp brains with a few mutations. You, on the other hand, have zero genetics background, don't understand the basics of genetics (such as when you claimed that mutations are trascription errors) and yet somehow think you have a leg to stand on.

Papias

 

[Aman777]

NPDfrock wrote:

Yep.

mark wrote:

And it has been shown that you do so by hiding evidence, avoiding explanations, and making unsupported statements. We can go over the past threads, you know.


Oh yeah, except that an actual geneticist, who is an expert in chimp and human brains from a genetic standpoint explained in the video I posted about how easy it is for human brains to have evolved from chimp brains with a few mutations. You, on the other hand, have zero genetics background, don't understand the basics of genetics (such as when you claimed that mutations are trascription errors) and yet somehow think you have a leg to stand on.

Papias

Dear Papias, God explains HOW and WHEN we obtained our Human intelligence. This refutes the false notion that we evolved our human intelligence from mindless Nature. Genesis 6:4 shows that the sons of God (Prehistoic man) changed or evolved (adaptation) from a Natural creature to a "giant' intellectually.

This happened on the world BEFORE the Flood "and also after that" on our world. Prehistoric man, whose origin was in the water on the 5th Day (Genesis 1:21) inherited the human intelligence of Adam when Noah's grandsons, like Cain, had NO other humans to marry. They married and produced the humans of Today with the people who were here when Noah arrived.

This is WHY we have the DNA of Mitochondrial Eve...AND... the human intelligence of Adam within our bodies. Genetics does NOT refute God's Holy Word. ALL humans are the descendants of Adam.

In Love,
Aman

 

[NoPostDocFrock]

Your post can only be described as yet another ad hominem attack. I'm not complaining, it tells me one thing in no uncertain terms. You have nothing else.

Would you PLEASE acquaint yourself with the definition of AD HOMINEM. You are using the term incorrectly. It is not simply a synonym for "an insult".

And do you really think your intelligence & ape brain rant is substantive when you simply declare "not enough time!"? Yet somehow you honestly believe that your shallow arguments from incredulity constitute rational analysis---and that the world's scientists (who actually know something about these topics) should be overwhelmed by your claims. Sheesh. I don't know how to help you to dig your way out of such arrogance and naivete. (Now, will you mislabel that paragraph as "ad hominem" as well? Probably.)