Creationism/Evolution

[trophy33]

There was no death from being eaten or old age, and because they ate the food God provided.

BTW God made the changes in the animals, which is completely different than the claims of phyletic gradualism by Darwinian evolution.

And it didn’t take millions of years, either.

And then He created so many gas, oil and animal fossils under the ground that could never ever fit into 6,000 years of living creatures -> just to confuse us.

 

[coffee4u]

I'm not going to argue science and evolution with you because I don't understand them.

All I know is that the Bible is not a science textbook. It is not the purpose of the Bible to explain HOW the world was created, only that it was; by God.
I don't see that it is necessary to believe that God created trees instantly - that they just materialised fully grown - to believe that God created trees. So if a scientist tells me that there is evidence that a tree is 20,000 years old, I'm not going to start saying that this evidence has been falsified by Satan or planted by God as some kind of test to see if we will believe it, or him.

I don't know how God created the world - obviously he spoke and it happened, but I don't know anything beyond that. And saying that is not going to convince an inquisitive child or scientific unbeliever.

Accepting evolution, or not, in no way changes the Gospel - we are still all sinners, Jesus died for our sins to reconcile us to God and we can have eternal life through him. We are saved through Jesus alone; no one, and nothing, else.

The reason for believing the creation account as written has nothing to do with trees or things that God created but rather the origin of sin.

As soon as the Gospel is preached it talks of sin and repentance of sin.
Acts 3:19
“Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord.”
Which then leads onto what is sin and where did it come from and why is it so bad.

Romans 5:12
Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned--
It's so bad because it caused spiritual and physical death.
'One man' instantly takes us back to who- 'Adam' and when- 'The fall'.
That isn't something we can ignore, as Christians we need to be able to explain that verse and how can we do that if we do not believe that Adam was literal and the fall was literal?

Jesus is the second Adam only because there was a first.
1 Corinthians 15:45-48
"The first man Adam became a living being" the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven. As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the man from heaven, so also are those who are of heaven.
This is because the first Adam was a real man who was literally tempted and literally failed. While Jesus was also a literal man (as well as God of course) who was also tempted by Satan (the temptation of Jesus is the desert) but where the first Adam fell Jesus did not. These things simply don't hold together if Adam was simply a story.

Then after that we are told that death will be vanquished and the world will be remade back to what it was. It certainly not going to be made back to some primordial soup, but back to how it was in Eden. The gospel is indelibly intertwined with the creation and fall account.

 

[Strong in Him]

The reason for believing the creation account as written has nothing to do with trees or things that God created but rather the origin of sin.

The origin of sin is that Adam was commanded by God not to do something, and he did it. He disobeyed his Creator and sin came into the world.

This is a completely separate issue from the question, "were trees created instantly and fully grown, or did God plant saplings and they grew over many years?"

Jesus is the second Adam only because there was a first.

Obviously there was a first.
As I said, the Hebrew word for man is Adam - it was not a name then. However he arrived in the world and however he was created, there was a first man. And it was to him that God gave the command not to eat - a command which he chose to disobey.

This is because the first Adam was a real man who was literally tempted and literally failed.

Like I said, of course he was; I've no problem with that.
The first man was a man - that goes without saying.

While Jesus was also a literal man (as well as God of course) who was also tempted by Satan (the temptation of Jesus is the desert) but where the first Adam fell Jesus did not. These things simply don't hold together if Adam was simply a story.

I never said that Adam was simply a story - nor am I arguing FOR evolution.

All that I'm saying is that;
- the Bible is not a scientific textbook and its purpose is not to explain HOW the world was created. Whereas God gives gifts to scientists so that they can discover, investigate and tell us more about God's creation.
- if someone does not believe that the world was made in 6, literal, 24 hour days and everything was created instantly, it does not mean they cannot be a Christian, that they are being deceived by devils, that they are against God and on the side of science, or any of the other things that I have read in various forums over the years.

I agree with John Stott when he said that it is for the scientists to tell us the HOW of creation; what the Bible tells us is the who and why. GOD created, GOD spoke, GOD saw that it was all good. This is God's world, he made it for a purpose - it is not something that randomly came about when some atoms happened to collide/divide/explode. This world is not a mistake or a result of chance - God is behind it all and is in charge.

The gospel is indelibly intertwined with the creation and fall account.

God created man and man chose to disobey God, true; that is not in dispute.

But that doesn't address, or affect, the question; how was the world created? The Bible does not answer this, it says "God spoke and it was so" - but those things could actually have taken thousands of years, in our time, to come into being.
That, for me, doesn't matter and doesn't affect the Gospel one bit. God created man, man rebelled and Jesus, as the second Adam, came to restore all things and reconcile us to the Father.

 

[Thomas White]

Nice curve ball.
So abiogenesis creates the most advanced life form first by random natural processes. How does that fit into the evolutionary theory? Did Adam devolve to the proto-cell and bio soup to start evolution again to again be Adam? Why is there no fossil record like an upside tree?

Are you an evolutionist or just an anti creationist? Your evolutionism seems to based on a witty denigration of the Scriptures or your anti-creationism is a witty denigration of the Scriptures.

God creating Adam from dust had to look like something... evolution is that something. It's really not hard. Science is just another viewpoint into God's creation. It all fits because God created it all.

 

[Job 33:6]

In reality it’s the metaphysical philosophy of naturalistic materialism, masquerading as science.

Do you view the theory of plate tectonics as methodological naturalism too?

 

[Job 33:6]

There was no death from being eaten or old age, and because they ate the food God provided.

BTW God made the changes in the animals, which is completely different than the claims of phyletic gradualism by Darwinian evolution.

And it didn’t take millions of years, either.

There was physicsl death before the existence of nanking, as observed in the geologic succession.

 

[nli]

Do you view the theory of plate tectonics as methodological naturalism too?

Why is there little or no ocean floor older than the Cretaceous period?

There must have been large amounts of plate tectonic movement that subducted the previous ocean floor.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

What did the process of Adam's creation look like? When we bake a cake, we start with the ingredients. The ingredients go through several phases before the cake forms. God formed Adam from dust. What were the phases between dust and Adam?

Except it says Adam was formed directly from the dust.... as were the other animals directly formed.....

This is why if you look at any evolutionary tree you will notice that there are only distinct lines and that every creature founds remains exactky the same for its entire existence. Every single solitary time one creature is claimed to be connected to another separate and distinct creature an imaginary missing common ancestor must be invoked.

This evolution that is said to have occurred only occurs with these imaginary missing common ancestors. Not just a few thousand times or even a few hundred thousand times. Not even millions of times or even billions of times.... but every single solitary time on every single solitary evolutionary tree for every single solitary creature attempted to be connected to another separate and distinct creature.....

If one takes away the imagination all one is left with is the cold hard fact of Kind after Kind.....

Belief in evolution requires “faith” in things not seen and elevating this “faith” above what is seen....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

And then He created so many gas, oil and animal fossils under the ground that could never ever fit into 6,000 years of living creatures -> just to confuse us.

Or people simply ignore Relativity in a universe increasing in acceleration and keep thinking these processes occurred at the same rate they do today despite the one and only science we have that deals with time and length changes with increasing velocity....

This is why astronomers are constantly surprised to find fully formed galaxies and galaxy clusters where none should exist. These processes occurred faster in the past. But since they only give lip service to Relativity and ignore its consequences, what should be an express prediction turns out to be an anomaly and falsification.

 

[Job 33:6]

Why is there little or no ocean floor older than the Cretaceous period?

There must have been large amounts of tectonic movement that subducted the previous ocean floor.

Or just regular amounts of tectonic movement over a longer period of time, as demonstrated by the geologic succession and general physics and chemistry.

I mean, what do you think about the formation of metamorphic faces and why they appear to suggest "regular" conditions over long periods of time?

View attachment 297619

 

[Job 33:6]

Or just regular amounts of tectonic movement over a longer period of time, as demonstrated by the geologic succession and general physics and chemistry.

I mean, what do you think about the formation of metamorphic faces and why they appear to suggest "regular" conditions over long periods of time?

Figure for reference:

 

[Job 33:6]

Figure for reference:
View attachment 297619

Another figure for reference

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Or just regular amounts of tectonic movement over a longer period of time, as demonstrated by the geologic succession and general physics and chemistry.

I mean, what do you think about the formation of metamorphic faces and why they appear to suggest "regular" conditions over long periods of time?

View attachment 297619

Long periods of Time in a universe increasing in acceleration is a rather subjective thing if we ignore Relativity and its consequences due to changes in velocity.... so instead of just giving lip service to it if we apply the one and only science we have that deals with changes to time and lengths in a universe increasing in acceleration..... we find that we must account for a faster rate the further back we calculate. But if we use a constant rate instead of an increasing rate backwards it leads to vast overestimations of how much time has actually passed....

So it confuses me as to why those claiming to follow science totally ignore the one and only science we have that deals with time and length changes in a universe said to be increasing in acceleration? While if we applied the consequences of said science we would come to the logical conclusion that by using a constant rate backwards instead of an increasing rate backwards we would vastly overestimate the amount of time that has actually passed......

 

[Cis.jd]

There was no death from being eaten or old age, and because they ate the food God provided.

Why would God provide food, what is the point of eating?

BTW God made the changes in the animals, which is completely different than the claims of phyletic gradualism by Darwinian evolution.

theistic evolution believes that God was behind evolution generally.

 

[Job 33:6]

Or just regular amounts of tectonic movement over a longer period of time, as demonstrated by the geologic succession and general physics and chemistry.

I mean, what do you think about the formation of metamorphic faces and why they appear to suggest "regular" conditions over long periods of time?

View attachment 297619

One more picture for reference:

 

[Kenny'sID]

The Bible says that God created the universe. It doesn't tell us how long it took - yes, I know it says a day, but God is outside time and a day to him may be hundreds of years to us.

There is where the problem lies. Number one, you are assuming something that is not biblical. Number 2, God is smart enough to know what we understand a day to be, so If he is going to the trouble to give us a true account, why in the worlld would he knowingly attempt to trick us on the timeline. He is not a God of confusion.

God says a day, he defines a day right there in description of creation several times, so God means a day, an evening and a morning type day.

If we know anything at all about God, we know he means what he says, and he says a day is an evening and a morning.

This is irrefutable.

 

[Chi.C]

it appears you don't understand or know the term: "abiogenesis"

Abiogenesis was first coined by Thomas Henry Huxley (Darwin's Bulldog) in his arguments against spontaneous generation circa late 1800s. Of late, the term abiogenesis has by revived in origin of life studies within evolutionary biology.

I was using the latter definition in my arguments with Thomas White in #122 as he stated the Adam creation my was a clear indication of abiogenesis. Please tell what is my lack of understanding?

 

[Chi.C]

I saw Pavlov’s dog chasing Schroedinger’s cat down the street.

No need to yell at the dog though, he won't listen and for heaven's sake don't look at the cat.

 

[Chi.C]

God creating Adam from dust had to look like something... evolution is that something.

So when He breathed life into his nostrils, this is part of chemical evolutionary process?

It's really not hard. Science is just another viewpoint into God's creation. It all fits because God created it all.

I am in total absolute agreement about science that follows the paradigm. Not ideas that require my faith or my emotional need to belong to greater society.

By the way Cis.jd #135 asked me if I understood abiogenesis as I used it in refutation to your argument. Your worldview seems very accommodating. Your wit seems of dinner party sort, casual and laissez faire.
The questions I am asking if you choose to answer
What is you view on abiogenesis, the new wonderfully funded science of evolutionary biology?
What is your understanding of evolution? Your view of evolution seems intentionally fuzzy.
Is your evolutionism is malleable by exigence of the Scripture or is your Scriptures malleable by your evolutionism?

 

[Thomas White]

So when He breathed life into his nostrils, this is part of chemical evolutionary process?


I am in total absolute agreement about science that follows the paradigm. Not ideas that require my faith or my emotional need to belong to greater society.

By the way Cis.jd #135 asked me if I understood abiogenesis as I used it in refutation to your argument. Your worldview seems very accommodating. Your wit seems of dinner party sort, casual and laissez faire.
The questions I am asking if you choose to answer
What is you view on abiogenesis, the new wonderfully funded science of evolutionary biology?
What is your understanding of evolution? Your view of evolution seems intentionally fuzzy.
Is your evolutionism is malleable by exigence of the Scripture or is your Scriptures malleable by your evolutionism?

Are you arguing that what I suggest is not possible through God? Think about that. If everything seems to fit because of a common element, everything most likely fits. Take God away and nothing fits.