Creationism, Darwinism and Natural History

[mark kennedy]

Yes, my biggest problem with MK relates to the Ninth Commandment.

You think I'm slandering Theistic Evolutionists? There was a legal remedy for that in the Old Testament. If you falsely accused someone of a crime and it was found out that your testimony was false you received the penalty they would have. My contention is simply this, Theistic Evolution is nothing more then one long argument against creation.

Give testimony then, what do you believe God created? Is there something that happened an natural history that God gets credit for doing directly. I am continually telling Theistic Evolutionists that they are devoid in their discussions of theology. Why don't you tell me about yours?

 

[Assyrian]

That's because he used Howard Van Till as an example of the Theistic Evolutionist view.

Yes I realised that was what you thought was the justification for questioning Papia's faith, I realise you consider all of yourself justified in all the personal attacks you make on TEs , but the fact is, you keep making them, all the while complaining TEs are the ones engaging in ad homs. You just can't see it can you? I have shown it to you before. It is not the first time you accused TEs of engaging in ad homs, when you were the first person in the thread to make a personal attack.

It doesn't matter if the agree or not, they demonstrate the truth of what I'm saying with their arguments like clock work.

It does matter if you are accusing them of equivocating. How can they be using a meaning of a evolution in their argument they do not think is true? That is your argument not theirs. What they are doing is not equivocating, it is simply not agreeing with you.

Saying it over and over again doesn't make it true, it makes it redundant. The difference between evolution as natural science and natural history is evident and obvious. The need to separate between what the word means and how it is used by someone is vital to dealing with modernist thought. They like to redefine words without telling you, Paul Tillich is a prime example of putting an atheistic philosophy in theological terminology. The old saw that I must be anti-evolution because I'm a Creationist is not only not true, it's silly. That is unless you equivocate your naturalistic assumptions with natural science which is the practice of all evolutionists, theistic or otherwise.

Sorry, what has that got to do with evos recognising that evolution is broader than the definition of evolution? Are you just switching argument because your first claim was debunked?

Of course you can but we don't call that science, we call that an historical narrative.

Your argument wasn't about biology being a science but about the etymology and meaning of the name. If the bounds of Biology is set, as you insist, by the meaning of the Greek bios and your insistence it has to be about still living things, then the the same etymology in Biography would mean it has to be about still living people. Of course it is a totally bogus argument. Astronomy is not limited to naming stars astron nomos. Geology is not limited to studying the earth ge. If you ever use Sat. Nav. you would realise navigation is not limited to steering ships navis agare. Hydrodynamics isn't limited to studying the movement of water. Energy is not always at work en ergon, and atoms are definitely not unsplitable a-tomos.

That will get you into Genesis 1 but never get you past it.

This is kind of ironic too when you are the one insisting on sticking to Genesis 1 to understand the meaning of bara create, while I have discussed the creation of Adam in Genesis 2 here and here, and the meaning of bara create, outside Genesis here. here and here

At least the Intelligent Design crowd give him credit for designing something, TEs can't even do that. What is the difference between a Theistic Evolutionist and a Darwinian who is an atheistic materialist. When it come to the creation of life there is none.

Atheists don't believe the entire universe is God's handiwork.

Moses didn't invent the story of Creation and they didn't copy it from cuneiform tablets. The revelation is from the only one who could have known what happened during creation week, God himself. You conveniently ignore this vital point of doctrine along with virtually every point of doctrine in Christian theism which is the practice of most TEs.

And I have discussed Genesis being a prophetic revelation from God with you before too.

Link If you realise the creation accounts are a prophetic revelation, then why would you mistake it for a historical narrative? God's prophetic revelations are full of metaphor and symbolism. Look at how God describes their real history by personifying Israel in the song of Jeshurun in Deut 32&33 or Jerusalem and her sisters in Ezekiel 16. Jesus spoke the history and future of Israel in parables too. Genesis may be God speaking truth, but that doesn't mean it is his literal witness testimony.
​

Papias has at least identified himself with a formal theology, that ties him to a standard. What do you believe, I'm not trying to be facetious here I'm seriously asking. What makes a person a Christian?

You give me your Christian testimony and I will be happy to share mine. I know all too well what you don't believe, you don't believe Genesis has any credibility as an historical narrative. I know you abandoned the Catholic Church, well, as a matter of fact so did I but that's because I became an evangelical.

How many times have I discussed the gospel with you Mark? Is there any point in listing all the links for that? Nevertheless you can read them here, here, here, here, here and here.

What exactly do you believe about God and the historicity of Scripture? As a matter of fact I would like to hear you thoughts on God as you understand him. This is a theology forum after all.

Have I mentioned before that God is eternal, the creator of everything? That he created all things and that they were created through his Son our saviour?

Mark you really need to examine your heart. What is it in you that make you keep thinking that your fellow believers are not really Christians that we aren't interested in the gospel and never discuss it, when we discuss it with you again and again? Is there some root of bitterness that has grown up there that make you want to believe we aren't your brothers in Christ? What is it in Creationism that produces this hardness in Christian's hearts?

 

[Assyrian]

Something I think that your are blind to is the fact that Creationism is first and foremost an American phenomenon.

Something I think you are blind to, Creationism is first and foremost essential doctrine.

Speaking of equivocation...

 

[Aman777]

Embedded Age Creationist here.

I believe God created the universe in six days as laid out in Genesis 1, but with age embedded into it.

Thus Adam came on the scene a mature adult; having age, but not having aged.

I define Embedded Age as "maturity without history."

Dear Vet, Sorry, but I disagree since the creation continues today, on the present 6th Creative day. We live today at Genesis 1:27 for God is STILL creating mankind in His Image or In Christ. Never in history has mankind been given dominion or rule over EVERY other living creature as Genesis 1:28 states and Never in history have ALL creatures been vegetarians as Genesis 1:29-30 states.

Genesis 1:28-31 is Prophecy. God, who sees the end from the beginning, would not say that it was very good in the beginning when He could see the disease, death, and wars of our time. God will say that it is very good when His creation is brought to perfection at the end of time. Genesis 1:31

In Love,
Aman

 

[AV1611VET]

Hi, Aman ... nice to meet you!

Dear Vet, Sorry, but I disagree since the creation continues today, on the present 6th Creative day. We live today at Genesis 1:27 for God is STILL creating mankind in His Image or In Christ. Never in history has mankind been given dominion or rule over EVERY other living creature as Genesis 1:28 states and Never in history have ALL creatures been vegetarians as Genesis 1:29-30 states.

Genesis 1:28-31 is Prophecy. God, who sees the end from the beginning, would not say that it was very good in the beginning when He could see the disease, death, and wars of our time. God will say that it is very good when His creation is brought to perfection at the end of time. Genesis 1:31

In Love,
Aman

Three questions:

1. Are you basing this on the fact that Genesis does not say, "And the evening and the morning were the seventh day"?

2. You say God will say that it is 'very good' when His creation is brought to perfection at the end of time; but do you realize that, when time ends, God is going to blow His creation apart with a great noise and recreate everything?

2 Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

3. Why can't God's creation stand before Him at the Great White Throne Judgment Seat?

Revelation 20:11 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.

 

[mark kennedy]

Yes I realised that was what you thought was the justification for questioning Papia's faith, I realise you consider all of yourself justified in all the personal attacks you make on TEs , but the fact is, you keep making them, all the while complaining TEs are the ones engaging in ad homs. You just can't see it can you? I have shown it to you before. It is not the first time you accused TEs of engaging in ad homs, when you were the first person in the thread to make a personal attack.

What am I supposed to think, he uses an atheist as his example of what theistic evolutionists believe. I want to know, is he an atheist. That's only an ad hominem when it's, 'to the man', rather then the substance of what is being said. Your posts for instance are always focused on the individual you've targeted, never the substance of what they are trying to say. That's why I'm always reminding you guys, you must be a Creationist in order to be a Christian because if you don't believe the Nicene Creed you don't belong here.

It does matter if you are accusing them of equivocating. How can they be using a meaning of a evolution in their argument they do not think is true? That is your argument not theirs. What they are doing is not equivocating, it is simply not agreeing with you.

All they do is disagree with me in a Tweedle-dum and Tweedle-dee fashion, 'contrary wise', is not a substantive argument and neither is arguing in circles around it. Evolution is the study of how traits change over time, Darwinism is simply an antithetical view of God as Creator. That's why these discussion are never without contention, there must always be someone like you who's only purpose is to be as scathing as possible. Which is why a lot of Creationists will not post to this forum:

Warn a divisive person once, and then warn him a second time. After that, have nothing to do with him. (Titus 3:10)​

Science is about natural phenomenon being directly observed or demonstrated, not assuming that every cause and effect relationship in history happened as the result of natural law rather then an act of God.

Sorry, what has that got to do with evos recognising that evolution is broader than the definition of evolution? Are you just switching argument because your first claim was debunked?

You couldn't debunk your way out of a wet paper bag. You argue in circles around the obvious and really do nothing more then insult Creationists. It's all you know how to do. When challenged to produce a definition of evolution you and Papias both agreed to my definition and failed miserably to prove that universal common descent by exclusively naturalistic means was a part of it. You guys want to make shallow, circular statements and then do a victory dance just because your an evolutionist and I'm a Creationist. Save it for the trolls, I'm not impressed.

Your argument wasn't about biology being a science but about the etymology and meaning of the name. If the bounds of Biology is set, as you insist, by the meaning of the Greek bios and your insistence it has to be about still living things, then the the same etymology in Biography would mean it has to be about still living people. Of course it is a totally bogus argument. Astronomy is not limited to naming stars astron nomos. Geology is not limited to studying the earth ge. If you ever use Sat. Nav. you would realise navigation is not limited to steering ships navis agare. Hydrodynamics isn't limited to studying the movement of water. Energy is not always at work en ergon, and atoms are definitely not unsplitable a-tomos.

What's your point man?

This is kind of ironic too when you are the one insisting on sticking to Genesis 1 to understand the meaning of bara create, while I have discussed the creation of Adam in Genesis 2

Stop with the links already, the meaning of 'bara' isn't going to change because you added some links.

Atheists don't believe the entire universe is God's handiwork.

Depends on what they mean by the word 'God'.

And I have discussed Genesis being a prophetic revelation from God with you before too.

You don't need links, I'm not changing my mind.

If you realise the creation accounts are a prophetic revelation, then why would you mistake it for a historical narrative?

Because the prophetic revelation of Genesis is an historical narrative. Your trying to make them mutually exclusive the way you try to make creation mutually exclusive with evolution but that's only because you distort and conflate the meaning.

God's prophetic revelations are full of metaphor and symbolism.

Are you really going to make up a new clutch phrase? Prophecy just means that God spoke and the 'prophet' relayed the message. That's why Genesis can't be derived from Near Eastern myths and be a prophetic revelation, it must be God speaking directly through a prophet. In Genesis the prophet was Moses who received the direct revelation from God first hand at the foot of Sinai. Figurative language certainly is common in the Hebrew literary style, that's not what your trying to argue here. Your trying to turn it into some cryptic symbolic riddle and it was simply not written that way. Genesis is an historical narrative, the church has always understood it in this way and always will. It's not hard to understand, you either believe it or you don't.

For it was not cleverly invented fables that we followed when we made known to you the power and the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ; it was because we were made eye-witnesses of his majesty. This happened to us on that occasion when he received honour and glory from God the Father, when this voice was borne to him by the majestic glory-"This is my Son, the Beloved, in whom I am well pleased." It was this voice that we heard, borne from heaven, when we were with him in the sacred mountain. (2 Peter 1:16-18)​

Look at how God describes their real history by personifying Israel in the song of Jeshurun in Deut 32&33 or Jerusalem and her sisters in Ezekiel 16. Jesus spoke the history and future of Israel in parables too. Genesis may be God speaking truth, but that doesn't mean it is his literal witness testimony.
How many times have I discussed the gospel with you Mark? Is there any point in listing all the links for that? Nevertheless you can read them

No there's no point in going down that rabbit hole link tangent again, it's a waste of time. Jesus used parables as spiritual lessons, never of Israel's history and the Gospel is explicit with regards to redemptive history. This is including the creation of Adam and original sin and the historicity of the Old Testament including the Deluge.

For the coming of the Son of Man will be just like the days of Noah. For as in those days which were before the flood they were eating and drinking, they were marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and they did not understand until the flood came and took them all away; so shall the coming of the Son of Man be. (Matthew 24:37-39)​

It's interesting that the Gospel comes up following you attempt to paint Old Testament as figurative, do you believe that about the New Testament as well?

Have I mentioned before that God is eternal, the creator of everything? That he created all things and that they were created through his Son our saviour?

No, you just insist that he used exclusively naturalistic means to create, rather then by divine fiat as Genesis literally describes. It's the dogma of Darwinism that all life descends from previously existing species by natural law rather then 'miraculous interpolation'. Theistic evolution is really nothing more then Darwinism with pedantic 'theism' implied, never defined and never defended. Like Darwinism it's just one long argument against Creation.

Mark you really need to examine your heart.

Indeed we should all examine ourselves to see whether or not we are in the faith and walking in the Spirit.

What is it in you that make you keep thinking that your fellow believers are not really Christians that we aren't interested in the gospel and never discuss it, when we discuss it with you again and again?

Because you have the habit of equivocating contradictory meanings of the words you use. You argue incessantly against the historicity of the historical narrative in Genesis 1 and because of the transcendent nature of the passage I suspect the naturalistic assumptions are attached to your hermeneutics.

Still, don't let me paint you in a corner with this. Prove me wrong, describe to me what you believe about the historicity of the Gospel accounts of the life and work of Christ in the 1st century and continuing to this day. If you believe the Gospel it should create no inward struggle to testify to the power of God demonstrated in the New Testament witness and the other historical narratives of the Bible.

If you believe the Gospel then you should have no qualms about defending it. Don't bother with a bunch of links that lead nowhere, just tell us plainly what you believe regarding the historicity of the Gospel.

For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. (Romans 10:10)​

Is there some root of bitterness that has grown up there that make you want to believe we aren't your brothers in Christ? What is it in Creationism that produces this hardness in Christian's hearts?

It's not the Creationist who is bitter toward Theistic Evolutionists. They mimic the same modernist skepticism of Scripture Darwinism and Liberal Theology are famous for. It has never been my intention to indict Theistic Evolutionists as unbelievers, my purpose is to remind them of what they must believe as Christians according to the clear testimony of Scripture and the Nicene Creed

I delight in sharing my faith with other believers and defending it against all who would set themselves against it. As a mature believer we are all called to build up one another in our faith, submitting to one another in the fear of the Lord (Eph. 5:21), not tear down essential doctrine like creation.

Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. Stand therefore (Ephesians 6:11-14)

You have the floor, what is your apologetic?

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Erth]

Something I think you are blind to, Creationism is first and foremost essential doctrine.



The Creation Science movement and it's intellectual cousin Intelligent Design are clearly an American phenomenon, I don't deny that. The thing is that atheism took root in Europe and a lot of the time religion there is ethnic, traditional and sometimes even nationalistic. Creationism as it's come to be known is really nothing more then a response to Darwinism, Humanism, Atheism and Liberal Theology that has hounded Bible believing Christians for 150 years now.

That debate; the one over which is the more Christian continent, America or Europe, is a completely dead end that will never yield a positive discussion, because, to begin with, Christianity in America is completely different from Christianity in Europe. Your characterizations are not only shallow, but also quite rude. It is furthermore somewhat comical that a person from America, the home of countless of extremely liberal, ultranationalistic and otherwise deranged off-shoots of Christianity, should want to accuse Europeans for those ills.

But I can at least grant that you do not have to respect European Christianity for my sake, because you can think what you want. If you want to think that America is so good in the eyes of God, and Europe so bad, then you can think that.

 

[mark kennedy]

That debate; the one over which is the more Christian continent, America or Europe, is a completely dead end that will never yield a positive discussion, because, to begin with, Christianity in America is completely different from Christianity in Europe. Your characterizations are not only shallow, but also quite rude. It is furthermore somewhat comical that a person from America, the home of countless of extremely liberal, ultranationalistic and otherwise deranged off-shoots of Christianity, should want to accuse Europeans for those ills.

I thought there was just one kind of a Christian, kind of changing horses in midstream there cowboy. Christians can't be nationalistic in this country because religion is barred from assuming any political authority. Your characterization of Christianity in the US and elsewhere is bogus. Creation is essential doctrine both in Europe and the United States. We do have a lot of Liberal Theology here but we have never produced a political power structure like the atheistic materialism of Stalin or the Nazi genocide of the Jews, Darwinism is credited with both. Terrible civil wars were fought over religion between the Protestant and Catholics and if the Protestants had not made a stand against Rome there would have been no Scientific Revolution.

You have your nerve to call me rude when you are obviously here to do nothing but ostracize Creationists. I know that because you have done nothing else.

But I can at least grant that you do not have to respect European Christianity for my sake, because you can think what you want. If you want to think that America is so good in the eyes of God, and Europe so bad, then you can think that.

I don't think Europe is bad, my lineage is European. My ancestors were kicked out of some of the best countries in Europe. My family was pretty much French Indian, settling in the midwest. Europe was one of the first mission fields of the early church as emerged from Asian minor. It has a long Christian history and in spite of a modernist trend toward atheism and agnosticism still respects and tolerates people of the Christian faith, often holding them in high regard. This isn't an indictment against Europe, the thought has never and would never occur to me.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Erth]

I thought there was just one kind of a Christian, kind of changing horses in midstream there cowboy.

By Christianity I meant the actual Christianity that is there. Nowhere did I say that there is more than one Christianity properly so called.

Christians can't be nationalistic in this country because religion is barred from assuming any political authority.

Yes, your government is in fact repressive against Christianity and religion in general, even if you usually will not admit it.

Your characterization of Christianity in the US and elsewhere is bogus.

Of course you think that.

Creation is essential doctrine both in Europe and the United States.

Creation is a fact. Creationism is a doctrine, but it is not a core Christian belief. It is completely optional.

We do have a lot of Liberal Theology here

Very true that, yes.

but we have never produced a political power structure like the atheistic materialism of Stalin or the Nazi genocide of the Jews,

Neither have we. I am a Swede, not a Russian and not a German.

if the Protestants had not made a stand against Rome there would have been no Scientific Revolution.

I doubt that you have ever looked into that question in depth. What you just said is commonplace Protestant propaganda anyway. And atheism, which by the way most arguably sprung out of Protestant culture, is so happy with Protestant thought that it has made it their own now. The anti-Church lobby is in fact anti-Christian.

You have your nerve to call me rude when you are obviously here to do nothing but ostracize Creationists. I know that because you have done nothing else.

That is complete and utter nonsense and a completely baseless accusation. I cannot say that I am sorry I upset you when I have said nothing disrespectful about Creationism. I do not sympathize with Creationism, and I believe it is a false doctrine, but I have respect for Creationists nevertheless.

I don't think Europe is bad, my lineage is European.

How does your lineage matter in this discussion? Did you not actually accuse Europeans for being too ethnic?

 

[mark kennedy]

By Christianity I meant the actual Christianity that is there. Nowhere did I say that there is more than one Christianity properly so called.

Then we at least agree on that much.

Yes, your government is in fact repressive against Christianity and religion in general, even if you usually will not admit it.

Well, I don't know I would say repressive but politics have never been a friend to religion.

Of course you think that.

Don't worry about it, I'm not all that thin skinned.

Creation is a fact. Creationism is a doctrine, but it is not a core Christian belief. It is completely optional.

Fair enough, of course believing in creation doesn't mean you have to accept Creationism (aka Creation Science). I never meant to suggest that. You just have to be careful to maintain sound doctrine when dealing with the whole Creation/Evolution thing. I know I have had to check myself a number of times.

Very true that, yes.

The seminaries seem to be over run with it, it's distressing but that's just how things are in the modern world.

Neither have we. I am a Swede, not a Russian and not a German.

That's in the Netherlands right? I only ask because I'm always getting it mixed up with Switzerland.

I doubt that you have ever looked into that question in depth. What you just said is commonplace Protestant propaganda anyway. And atheism, which by the way most arguably sprung out of Protestant culture, is so happy with Protestant thought that it has made it their own now. The anti-Church lobby is in fact anti-Christian.

Well, you kind of have a point there. Protestantism has lead to a lot of atheistic theology, thinking of the German theologians here. The Orthodox and Catholics have always managed to maintain traditional Christian theism. I dare say, more so then we Protestants in the States have regrettably.

That is complete and utter nonsense and a completely baseless accusation. I cannot say that I am sorry I upset you when I have said nothing disrespectful about Creationism. I do not sympathize with Creationism, and I believe it is a false doctrine, but I have respect for Creationists nevertheless.

Might want to check that, my version of Creationism is based on an exposition of the Genesis account and the requisite New Testament teachings regarding it. Before you start branding me a false teacher you probably better get better acquainted with what I believe.

How does your lineage matter in this discussion? Did you not actually accuse Europeans for being too ethnic?

I'm just saying I couldn't disparage Europe without being self deprecating. My people are from Europe and the US culture while distinct has long been profoundly influenced by European culture, probably always will be.

Thanks for the exchange, I'll be back later if you want to continue the discussion.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Erth]

That's in the Netherlands right? I only ask because I'm always getting it mixed up with Switzerland.

You have got to be kidding me. I just had to quote you.

 

[Aman777]

Vet:>>Hi, Aman ... nice to meet you!


Three questions:

1. Are you basing this on the fact that Genesis does not say, "And the evening and the morning were the seventh day"?

Dear Vet, No. The 7th day is Eternity. It has no evening nor morning. Remember that the evening comes first in all the other days. The 7th day has no evening because the darkness/death has already been destroyed before the 7th day begins. 1Cr 15:26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.

Vet:>>2. You say God will say that it is 'very good' when His creation is brought to perfection at the end of time; but do you realize that, when time ends, God is going to blow His creation apart with a great noise and recreate everything?

No need to recreate since the LORD has already made other HeavenS (2nd and 3rd) on the 3th Day. Genesis 2:4 The first heaven or firmament was made on the 2nd Day. Genesis 1:6-8

2 Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

If that sounds like a Meteor is going to hit Earth, so be it. Remember also that Jesus is brighter than the Noonday Sun and could totally burn our world with just the words coming out of His mouth.

Vet:>>3. Why can't God's creation stand before Him at the Great White Throne Judgment Seat?

Revelation 20:11 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.

It's not the 3rd Heaven which is destroyed. It's the present 2nd Heaven which is "fled away." Just as the 1st Heaven was destroyed in the Flood, our world will be burned. This confirms what Peter told us in ll Peter 3:3-7 and which the Scoffers of the last days refuse to believe. God bless you.

In Love,
Aman

 

[Papias]

NSP wrote:

Hm. So if for example a child is born with Down's syndrome, was that extra chromosome part of God's plan? Would God deliberately make a foetus disabled?

Well, that's not only a question with a very involved answer, but off topic too (there are tons of threads in General theology that deal with this, the theodicy question).

It's not a bad discussion topic, but suffice it to say that the answer will come down to whether or not everything that happens is "God's plan".

Papias

 

[Papias]

mark wrote:

That's why I'm always reminding you guys, you must be a Creationist in order to be a Christian because if you don't believe the Nicene Creed you don't belong here.

looks like mark is equivocating again, with the same two defintions of "creationist" he equivocates with usually, such as in his recent "Doctrine" thread.

"Creationist" can mean "one who denies common descent", or it can mean "one who believes God did the creating". That's the key to mark's equivocation.

From that, let's un-equivocate mark's post:

You cannot deny that you must be a Creationist in order to be a Christian, I know your theology, it's unavoidable.

Let's un-equivocate that, shall we:


Under definition #1, mark's statement is FALSE:

You cannot deny that you must be a common descent denier in order to be a Christian, I know your theology, it's unavoidable.

Under definition #2, mark's statement is TRUE:

You cannot deny that you must be a person who believes God created, even through evolution, in order to be a Christian, I know your theology, it's unavoidable.
​

http://www.christianforums.com/t7705771-2/#post61897738

So I have to wonder - is mark ever going to quit equivocating with the term "creationism"?

Papias

 

[MrsLurking]

mark wrote:


looks like mark is equivocating again, with the same two defintions of "creationist" he equivocates with usually, such as in his recent "Doctrine" thread.

"Creationist" can mean "one who denies common descent", or it can mean "one who believes God did the creating". That's the key to mark's equivocation.

That has been explained to Mark more than once, as I recall. But misuse of "creationist" is rather common on these threads when it serves the needs of the moment.

 

[mark kennedy]

looks like mark is equivocating again, with the same two defintions of "creationist" he equivocates with usually, such as in his recent "Doctrine" thread.

I never did that, I've always been clear that there's a difference between creation as doctrine from the canon of Scripture and Creation 'Science'. Unlike you, who has always equivocated evolution as a naturally occurring phenomenon and the naturalistic assumptions of a Darwinian world view. Which BTW, is essentially atheistic.

"Creationist" can mean "one who denies common descent", or it can mean "one who believes God did the creating". That's the key to mark's equivocation.

Putting on another one of your performances again, I always wonder who you think your talking to and if they applaud or just laugh at you. Anyway, Creationists never deny common decent, they deny universal common descent by exclusively naturalistic means. That's your whole problem, you have no regard for the actual meaning of words.

From that, let's un-equivocate mark's post:

In other words, let's twist his words around to mean something he never intended the way we do with the Scriptures. BTW, you don't 'un-eqivocate' an equivocation fallacy, you show the dual meanings and how they are used synonymously. There is no need to undo it, it's an argument that never happened like the ad hominems you guys use because you have nothing else.

Let's un-equivocate that, shall we:


Under definition #1, mark's statement is FALSE:

You cannot deny that you must be a common descent denier in order to be a Christian, I know your theology, it's unavoidable.

Under definition #2, mark's statement is TRUE:

You cannot deny that you must be a person who believes God created, even through evolution, in order to be a Christian, I know your theology, it's unavoidable.
[/INDENT]http://www.christianforums.com/t7705771-2/#post61897738

Translation: Lets quote Mark out of context and make his words mean something other then what he literally said, just like we do Genesis.

I defer to the Nicene Creed and the rendering of the original words from Genesis.

Neither of which define the word "creation". Heck, neither of them are oringinally written in english, for that matter.

Ok, the Nicene Creed doesn't define creation, but then again it didn't need to, it meant God created. True, the Genesis account was originally written in Hebrew but when confronted with the literal meaning of the word used in Genesis for 'created'...

Strong's H1254 - bara'

1) to create, shape, form

a) (Qal) to shape, fashion, create (always with God as subject)

1) of heaven and earth
2) of individual man
3) of new conditions and circumstances
4) of transformations​

Papias says nothing and his silence speaks volumes. Will he ever admit to the actual meaning of the word used in Scripture, that I use to define the term 'Creationist'? No, he can never honestly admit to what the Scriptures actually teach because he opposes the meaning. By redefining creation as 'evolution' denier' he is conceding that 'creation' in the Biblical sense is in direct contradiction of his philosophy of natural history he calls 'evolution'.

So I have to wonder - is mark ever going to quit equivocating with the term "creationism"?

He wants to make a creationist someone who is an 'evolution denier' because he equivocates evolution as science with the a priori assumption of universal common descent. If you deny any link in the chain being exclusively naturalistic you are an evolution denier. If you conclude or otherwise believe that God acts directly, you are an evolution denier.

What he isn't telling you is that the Scriptures clearly define God's creative works in the Genesis account of Creation. God created the heavens and the earth (Gen. 1:1), life (1:21), and man (1:27), 'bara', literally out of nothing, doing something that only God can do. It does not say he used evolution, natural law or pagan elementals of any kind. It says that the universe and life has as it's primary source, that is, as the first cause of all creation, God. That makes Papias's definition of evolution 'creation denier'. I need not redefine anything because I have a lexicon for the definition of 'creation'. What he is calling 'equivocation' is actually called 'exegesis', something he knows very little about and could care less.

That's how 'creation' is defined in the canon of Scripture, I have never used it otherwise. In the Genesis account two other words are used for creation as well, not that it would matter to someone who want's to change the meaning to 'evolution denier' rather then the originally intended meaning Those like Papias who are Scripture deniers will tell you otherwise twisting the meaning of words beyond recognition.

That has been explained to Mark more than once, as I recall. But misuse of "creationist" is rather common on these threads when it serves the needs of the moment.

Still trolling the Christian's only forums I see. Don't you get tired of being proven wrong every single time?

The equivocation of 'evolution' as properly defined scientifically, and assumed dialectically is dogma among Darwinians, that and personal attacks. The misuse of 'creation' is only common among Theistic Evolutionists who can't or won't use a dictionary or lexicon available for free online.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

You have got to be kidding me. I just had to quote you.

Well I do get them mixed up. I think it's the term 'Swiss' that throws me, it looks so much like 'Sweed'. Anyway, glad you got a chuckle out of it at least.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Anyway, Creationists never deny common decent, they deny universal common descent by exclusively naturalistic means.
...
He wants to make a creationist someone who is an 'evolution denier' because he equivocates evolution as science with the a priori assumption of universal common descent. If you deny any link in the chain being exclusively naturalistic you are an evolution denier. If you conclude or otherwise believe that God acts directly, you are an evolution denier.

Speaking personally, I've never heard of a creationist who believes in universal common descent - by exclusively naturalistic means or otherwise.

I know that some creationists believe in microevolution and / or hyperevolution and techincally this makes them evolutionists. I say "technically" because accepting one form of evolution (wolves into dogs, for example) while rejecting other forms (apes into humans) is like accepting the moon revolves around the Earth while denying that the Earth revolves around the sun.

Even if I were to use your particular definitions of "creationist" and "evolutionist", the difference between theistic evolutionists and creationists who accept microevolution is not that one believes that life evolved through exclusively naturalistic means and the other doesn't. It's that one believes in universal common descent and the other does not.

I would even argue that creationists themselves believe microevolution occurs through exclusively naturalistic means ... or to put it another way, when microevolution occurs (such as wolves into dogs), is God guiding that process or does it happen by itself?

 

[mark kennedy]

Speaking personally, I've never heard of a creationist who believes in universal common descent - by exclusively naturalistic means or otherwise.

That would be in regards to the original creation of course. After that naturalistic means is really a matter of divine providence. The Genesis account of creation starts off with the creation of the universe in the strongest terms possible (Genesis 1:1). The creation week that follows in Genesis 1 describes the earth being covered in darkness and water, then through a series of acts, prepares the world for living creatures (Genesis 1:2-20). In Genesis 1:21 life is created, 'bara' (Strong's H1254 - bara' בָּרָא )

There is a contrast between things created in the 'bara' sense. First the different words that are translated 'created' and how they are used in Scripture:

Bara' ' is frequently found in parallel to these other verbs, such as:

• `asah, "to make" Isa 41:20; 43:7; 45:7,12; Amos 4:13,
• yatsar, "to form" Isa 43:1,7; 45:7; Amos 4:13, and
• kun, "to establish."

A verse that illustrates all of these words together is Isa 45:18 (Vine's Expository Dictionary)​

Here is the the passage mentioned in Vines' and I've added some links in case you might want to explore the variations in meaning:

"For thus saith the Lord that 'created [bara] the heavens; God himself that 'formed [Strong's H3335 - yatsar יָצַר ] the earth and 'made [Strong's H6213 - `asah עָשָׂה ] it; he hath 'established [kun] it, he 'created [bara] it not in vain, he ' formed [yatar] it to be inhabited: I am the Lord; and there is none else." ( Isa 45:18: )​

A close look at the meaning in the original makes it clear that some things were created in the 'bara' sense, 'out of nothing', and other words that indicate preexisting sources. That is applied to the original creation of the universe and life, plain and simple.

I know that some creationists believe in microevolution and / or hyperevolution and techincally this makes them evolutionists. I say "technically" because accepting one form of evolution (wolves into dogs, for example) while rejecting other forms (apes into humans) is like accepting the moon revolves around the Earth while denying that the Earth revolves around the sun.

Evolution as it is defined scientifically is simply the, 'change of allele (traits) in populations over time'. That pretty much makes everyone an evolutionist if you want to be truly scientific about it. What is being argued by the Darwinian 'evolutionist' isn't natural science at all, it's a presupposition that is made about the origin and history of life going all the way back to the Big Bang. It's natural law rather then God performing a miracle, which is exactly what Genesis 1 is describing in no uncertain terms.

Believing in microevolution is just a realization that things adapt over time. Evolutionist is a term that speaks of someone who believes that God is never invoked as a primary cause. It's important to realize, apart from the original creation God need not direct the course of evolution, He has already provided the molecular mechanisms and natural processes that have been inherited from the originally created 'kinds'.

Even if I were to use your particular definitions of "creationist" and "evolutionist", the difference between theistic evolutionists and creationists who accept microevolution is not that one believes that life evolved through exclusively naturalistic means and the other doesn't. It's that one believes in universal common descent and the other does not.

That sounds like what I've been arguing on here for years now.

I would even argue that creationists themselves believe microevolution occurs through exclusively naturalistic means ... or to put it another way, when microevolution occurs (such as wolves into dogs), is God guiding that process or does it happen by itself?

No, God doesn't have to micromanage that particular change. There is something called 'the Laws of Inheritance', aka Mendelian Genetics.

Mendel's Laws, excerpt 1 | MIT 7.01SC Fundamentals of Biology - YouTube

If you decide to invest the 23 minutes it will take to watch this video, you will find that what you are calling 'microevolution' is nothing more the Medallion Genetics. What you will never find is a Young Earth Creationist that has a problem with it, ever. This, my friend, the the scientific definition for evolution.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Erth]

The misuse of 'creation' is only common among Theistic Evolutionists who can't or won't use a dictionary or lexicon available for free online.

Do you always accept what dictionary's say without any discrimination? I do not. You may also want to consider that the purpose of a dictionary is to list DIFFERENT meanings of a word, different meanings that you may or may not want to combine, and that may not even be compatible with each other.

But let us see what a dictionary says then, because I think that way we may actually clear this up very efficiently. This is from Creationism | Define Creationism at Dictionary.com :

cre·a·tion·ism [kree-ey-shuh-niz-uhm] Show IPA
noun
1.
the doctrine that matter and all things were created, substantially as they now exist, by an omnipotent Creator, and not gradually evolved or developed.
2.
( sometimes initial capital letter ) the doctrine that the true story of the creation of the universe is as it is recounted in the Bible, especially in the first chapter of Genesis.
3.
the doctrine that God immediately creates out of nothing a new human soul for each individual born.

First of all, unless we think that a dictionary should determine what is the accurate interpretation of Genesis - and that is not what I think - it is clear that the definitions may or may not be compatible, depending on who is reading Genesis. Common ancestry denial is not there in the Genesis account as far as I can see, but those who are Creationists according to the first definition claim usually claim that it is there, so in fact there is a difference of opinion. What is even more evident is that Creationists according to the first definition tend to deny evolution, regardless of whether that entails an evolution that God arranged or not. Total evolution denial is also not there in the Genesis account as far as I can see, and so we have once more a difference of opinion. It should be rather clear from this that the first two definitions are not necessarily compatible. And I will soon show you that the definitions of others words that occur in dictionaries may also have meanings listed that are not compatible with each other. That is the normal state of affairs for dictionaries, and it does not mean that I think that they are wrong. They are just dictionaries.

Second of all, the meaning listed as the one with first priority in the dictionary is the one that involves common ancestry denial and general refusal to admit that things have evolved, regardless of how they may have evolved. That is in fact the definition that I agree with.

Third of all, I do not see the definition that Creationists like yourself claim is the correct one listed at all, and now I am talking about the idea that Creationism simply means "God did the creating". There is also very clearly a lot more in the Genesis account than that. And so, some people who are Creationists in the second sense listed in the dictionary will agree with you, and some will not agree with you on such things as common ancestry denial. I wonder if that is something that you will accept, or if you will try to work around it somehow. I know for a fact that dictionaries often list different definitions of the same word, different definitions that are not meant to be combined. Instead, they are listed for reference and to help readers understand different ways of using a word, and so, to me, it is not a problem.

Let us look at an example of this general characteristic of dictionaries, in the word "fidelity":

fi·del·i·ty [fi-del-i-tee, fahy-] Show IPA
noun, plural fi·del·i·ties.
1.
strict observance of promises, duties, etc.: a servant's fidelity.
2.
loyalty: fidelity to one's country.
3.
conjugal faithfulness.
4.
adherence to fact or detail.
5.
accuracy; exactness: The speech was transcribed with great fidelity.

Now I think you will readily agree that a person who practices conjugal fidelity may not always know the facts or details of everything he or she is talking about, and that he or she may not always recount what others have said exactly (or even accurately) the way they said it.

If we take another example, the word "affection", it is also clear that the meaning first listed in the dictionary may not be taken as a meaning that sums all the other meanings up. Meaning number 1, 2, 3 and so on are instead meant to reflect the variety of meanings that a word may have:

af·fec·tion1 [uh-fek-shuhn] Show IPA
noun
1.
fond attachment, devotion, or love: the affection of a parent for an only child.
2.
Often, affections.
a.
emotion; feeling; sentiment: over and above our reason and affections.
b.
the emotional realm of love: a place in his affections.
3.
Pathology . a disease, or the condition of being diseased; abnormal state of body or mind: a gouty affection.
4.
the act of affecting; act of influencing or acting upon.
5.
the state of being affected.

I hope that you do now see that meanings listed for a word in a dictionary are not necessarily listed in a logical order, and that they are not necessarily compatible with each other. From that it should furthermore be clear that not everything a dictionary says should be taken as the Gospel truth, or the Genesis truth, for that matter.