-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Creationism
- Thread starter yec_12
- Start date
Many people in the US discuss this topic on regular basis. Many people believe that the "six day creation" in the Bible is a metaphor for many years. I personally believe that the Bible has it the right way. I think that God created the world in six days. He created the animals the way he said they did. He created all the animals. There is nothing that God " let evolve" into something that he didn't mean to be on earth. Hope that gives you some insight. 
Upvote
0
Thanks for the insight. 
However that poses a problem. If god created the earth and the universe. His creation has evidence that says its older and different from the way the literal bible says. So either god created the earth to lie to us (I would doubt that he would) or, the bible wasnt ment to be read literally.
However that poses a problem. If god created the earth and the universe. His creation has evidence that says its older and different from the way the literal bible says. So either god created the earth to lie to us (I would doubt that he would) or, the bible wasnt ment to be read literally.
Upvote
0
lucaspa
Legend
I am glad you phrased it the correct way you did: "I think that God created the world in six days." At least you are saying this is your opinion of how Genesis should be read.
Now, when you say "He created the animals the way he said they did." Which way is that? In Genesis 1 God speaks the animals into existence: "Let there be" but in Genesis 2 God forms them out of the ground. Doesn't the fact that the Bible says God created the animals differently tell you that, while God created the animals, neither is the actual way he did it?
Why can't God have created them through evolution? Here is what one Christian theologian said:
"Christians should look on evolution simply as the method by which God works." James McCosh, theologian and President of Princeton, The Religious Aspects of Evolution, 2d ed. 1890, pg 68.
Why isn't evolution the method by which God created?
Upvote
0
lucaspa
Legend
26th February 2003 at 04:31 PM JohnR7 said this in Post #101
I would be interested in knowing what your opinion is of his sermon on the resurrection. Perhaps you could find something in there that you think you could falsify.
I have never said science has falsified the resurrection. In fact, since there is no evidence around for us to study, science can't. Science can address whether the Shroud of Turin dates back to 33 AD, but that addresses only the Shroud of Turin.
I think Wesley gets way to hung up on whether the body will be the original. I can't see what theological difference that it makes, nor can I see that it can be the original. The atoms that make up the body have been recycled and probably wound up in several human bodies over the millenia. So pulling all the original atoms together for Wesley's body would leave some other person short.
Then his sermon on those who corrupt the word of God. I am sure you would find yourself in that one.
I find you in that one. As I have pointed out several times as you distort the Bible. For instance, Wesley says "The First and great mark of one who corrupts the word of God, is, introducing into it human mixtures; either the errors [heresies] of others, or the fancies of his own brain." You have done this numerous times, John. Matthew 7:5 applies to your blindness here.
That could help you understand why God's word is of no help to you.
John, this isn't about believing in God. This is about whether a specific scientific theory -- creationism -- is valid or falsified. Why do you insist on tying creationism to the existence of God? HOW God created is simply not connected. If you want to proselytize for Christianity, please go ahead. But if you want to be successful, then you have to separate the issue of how God created from the issue of whether God created. Once again, you have said that if I believed creationism then I could believe God. But half the evolutionary biologists believe God but did not believe creationism. Even Adam Sedgwick, as much as he had problems with biological evolution, had already rejected what you call "God's word" because he had rejected a literal Noah's Flood. Yet he never lost his faith and I see no reason why he should have.
It is you driving people away from Christianity. I'm trying to tell people that the foolishness you advocate needn't do this.
Is the soul really seperate from the body?
Wesley starts out advocating what is called "elan vital" or some vital fluid responsible for life. A common belief in the mid 1700s but shown false by 1900.
Wesley advocates a soul separate from the body. This is orthodox Christianity and isn't something that science is able to comment about. Wesley is convinced it is there, but there is no objective intersubjective evidence on the subject. That means it is untestable by science.
I would be interested in knowing what your opinion is of his sermon on the resurrection. Perhaps you could find something in there that you think you could falsify.
I have never said science has falsified the resurrection. In fact, since there is no evidence around for us to study, science can't. Science can address whether the Shroud of Turin dates back to 33 AD, but that addresses only the Shroud of Turin.
I think Wesley gets way to hung up on whether the body will be the original. I can't see what theological difference that it makes, nor can I see that it can be the original. The atoms that make up the body have been recycled and probably wound up in several human bodies over the millenia. So pulling all the original atoms together for Wesley's body would leave some other person short.
Then his sermon on those who corrupt the word of God. I am sure you would find yourself in that one.
I find you in that one. As I have pointed out several times as you distort the Bible. For instance, Wesley says "The First and great mark of one who corrupts the word of God, is, introducing into it human mixtures; either the errors [heresies] of others, or the fancies of his own brain." You have done this numerous times, John. Matthew 7:5 applies to your blindness here.
That could help you understand why God's word is of no help to you.
John, this isn't about believing in God. This is about whether a specific scientific theory -- creationism -- is valid or falsified. Why do you insist on tying creationism to the existence of God? HOW God created is simply not connected. If you want to proselytize for Christianity, please go ahead. But if you want to be successful, then you have to separate the issue of how God created from the issue of whether God created. Once again, you have said that if I believed creationism then I could believe God. But half the evolutionary biologists believe God but did not believe creationism. Even Adam Sedgwick, as much as he had problems with biological evolution, had already rejected what you call "God's word" because he had rejected a literal Noah's Flood. Yet he never lost his faith and I see no reason why he should have.
It is you driving people away from Christianity. I'm trying to tell people that the foolishness you advocate needn't do this.
Is the soul really seperate from the body?
Wesley starts out advocating what is called "elan vital" or some vital fluid responsible for life. A common belief in the mid 1700s but shown false by 1900.
Wesley advocates a soul separate from the body. This is orthodox Christianity and isn't something that science is able to comment about. Wesley is convinced it is there, but there is no objective intersubjective evidence on the subject. That means it is untestable by science.
Upvote
0
lucaspa
Legend
26th February 2003 at 01:30 PM Faded_Mystery said this in Post #100
ok this is my first post, so go easy
OK. I'll go easy.
I've browsed most of the posts, there are quite a few so if i repeat or get anything wrong i apologise.
Birds were said to be created before other land animals. Paleontologists, who almost universally support the theory of evolution, point out that the fossil record shows the opposite order. Creation scientists discount this belief. Most regard the rock layers containing the fossil record as having been laid down during the flood of Noah; thus, the fossils do not represent the evolution of the species of animals and birds.
You have hit upon the role Noah's Flood plays for YEC. Without it, they have no explanation for the existence of the fossil record. So they have to have Noah's Flood be something that is not Biblical.
1. Not only does the Flood have to make fossils, but the rocks that they lie in. This means a huge violent Flood that is not Biblical. Remember the rivers describing the location of Eden are pre-Flood but were written post-Flood. Therefore the Flood wasn't supposed to have changed the landscape that much and rivers there before the Flood were there to be written about after the Flood.
2. Why all the extinct marine life? The Bible doesn't say anything about fish or other water creatures going extinct. The YECers have to pull this one from outside the Bible.
3. The Flood as causing the entire geological column was falsified by 1800. That there ever was world-wide Flood at all was falsified by 1831. This is long before evolution came along. The people doing the falsifying were Christians, most of them ministers.
Conflicts between the creation stories: There are some apparent inconsistencies between the first and second creation accounts: ...Religious conservatives feel that they they have harmonized these apparent inconsistencies.
What are the harmonizations? None of the creationists here have been able to give them.
Exodus 20:11 Creation is described as taking six days.
Exodus 31:17 God made the heavens and earth in six days.
Job 38:4 to 38:7 The creation of the earth is described as occurring on a single morning "when the morning stars sang together."
if you read literally, more contradictions.
Personally I believe that the creation story as detailed in genesis is not to be taken as a literal historical account, this i feel does not take a way from my faith or my walk.
Congratulations! An intelligent choice and one shared by the vast majority of Christians.l
Science is constantly evolving and theories are only "correct" until the next theory. Science is a flawed in that our perceptions are not all encompasing, we are not omniscient and therefore do not know everything or connot break down everything into fundamental truths.
But we can definitely say that some theories are wrong. And creationism is wrong.
But note that your statement also applies to interpretations of the Bible. Applies equally well, as a matter of fact. It also applies to theology. After all, wasn't the Judaic theology only "correct" until Jesus came along?
From my personal point of view, science is the continued discovery about the mechanisms of creation
Congratulations again. That was Darwin's view.
I believe as a christian that you should believe in a creator God, this doesn't mean that you have to view genesis as an exact historical account, certianly not from a human point of view where a day is a 24hr period.
"Christians should look on evolution simply as the method by which God works." James McCosh, theologian and President of Princeton, The Religious Aspects of Evolution, 2d ed. 1890, pg 68.
Creationists don't like when I post that and none has ever attempted to show why McCosh was wrong.
To ask a question, not sure of the answer and i haven't looked at the scriptural evidence but...say genesis is correct and that it was made in 6 days do these have to have to be of a 24hr period.
You said you didn't need a literal interpretation. So why are you now reaching for one? As you pointed out, even if each day is millions or billions of years, the order of creation is off. That order, however, fits perfectly with the order of appearance of the gods of the Babylonian pantheon. Genesis 1 is destroying those gods by making them creations of Yahweh.
I have noticed that quite a few people have been getting quite impassioned, i know that this issue may mean a lot to some people and that no matter what evidence either way is presented will refuse to bow down to the other 'side'
This only matters if you think the "other side" is atheism. Since it's not, you have to ask yourself why creationists are trying to make evolution be atheism.
There is no need to imply that people are cowardly or anything else of a similar nature.
I'm only "cowardly" because I won't tell Micaiah my personal worldview. Since I don't think that constitutes cowardice because the evidence and arguments are independent of my worldview, I don't take Micaiah's views seriously. Also, since Micaiah knows I accept evolution, from his viewpoint I can't be Christian whether I claim to be or not. So why bother when he has already told us what the answer must be?
I feel that personally creationism vs. evolution or six 24hr periods vs. billions of years is largely irrelevant to whether you are a man of faith or not.
Again, join the vast majority of Christians and Christian denominations. Go to http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/4650_statements_from_religious_orga_3_13_2001.asp and see the number of denominations that agree with you.
I don't believe that the bible is a science book,
And it's not, so don't trap yourself into trying to make it one by looking whether days means millions of years. Look for the theology.
There, was that easy enough?
Welcome aboard.
ok this is my first post, so go easy
OK. I'll go easy.I've browsed most of the posts, there are quite a few so if i repeat or get anything wrong i apologise.
Birds were said to be created before other land animals. Paleontologists, who almost universally support the theory of evolution, point out that the fossil record shows the opposite order. Creation scientists discount this belief. Most regard the rock layers containing the fossil record as having been laid down during the flood of Noah; thus, the fossils do not represent the evolution of the species of animals and birds.
You have hit upon the role Noah's Flood plays for YEC. Without it, they have no explanation for the existence of the fossil record. So they have to have Noah's Flood be something that is not Biblical.
1. Not only does the Flood have to make fossils, but the rocks that they lie in. This means a huge violent Flood that is not Biblical. Remember the rivers describing the location of Eden are pre-Flood but were written post-Flood. Therefore the Flood wasn't supposed to have changed the landscape that much and rivers there before the Flood were there to be written about after the Flood.
2. Why all the extinct marine life? The Bible doesn't say anything about fish or other water creatures going extinct. The YECers have to pull this one from outside the Bible.
3. The Flood as causing the entire geological column was falsified by 1800. That there ever was world-wide Flood at all was falsified by 1831. This is long before evolution came along. The people doing the falsifying were Christians, most of them ministers.
Conflicts between the creation stories: There are some apparent inconsistencies between the first and second creation accounts: ...Religious conservatives feel that they they have harmonized these apparent inconsistencies.
What are the harmonizations? None of the creationists here have been able to give them.
Exodus 20:11 Creation is described as taking six days.
Exodus 31:17 God made the heavens and earth in six days.
Job 38:4 to 38:7 The creation of the earth is described as occurring on a single morning "when the morning stars sang together."
if you read literally, more contradictions.
Personally I believe that the creation story as detailed in genesis is not to be taken as a literal historical account, this i feel does not take a way from my faith or my walk.
Congratulations! An intelligent choice and one shared by the vast majority of Christians.l
Science is constantly evolving and theories are only "correct" until the next theory. Science is a flawed in that our perceptions are not all encompasing, we are not omniscient and therefore do not know everything or connot break down everything into fundamental truths.
But we can definitely say that some theories are wrong. And creationism is wrong.
But note that your statement also applies to interpretations of the Bible. Applies equally well, as a matter of fact. It also applies to theology. After all, wasn't the Judaic theology only "correct" until Jesus came along?
From my personal point of view, science is the continued discovery about the mechanisms of creation
Congratulations again. That was Darwin's view.
I believe as a christian that you should believe in a creator God, this doesn't mean that you have to view genesis as an exact historical account, certianly not from a human point of view where a day is a 24hr period.
"Christians should look on evolution simply as the method by which God works." James McCosh, theologian and President of Princeton, The Religious Aspects of Evolution, 2d ed. 1890, pg 68.
Creationists don't like when I post that and none has ever attempted to show why McCosh was wrong.
To ask a question, not sure of the answer and i haven't looked at the scriptural evidence but...say genesis is correct and that it was made in 6 days do these have to have to be of a 24hr period.
You said you didn't need a literal interpretation. So why are you now reaching for one? As you pointed out, even if each day is millions or billions of years, the order of creation is off. That order, however, fits perfectly with the order of appearance of the gods of the Babylonian pantheon. Genesis 1 is destroying those gods by making them creations of Yahweh.
I have noticed that quite a few people have been getting quite impassioned, i know that this issue may mean a lot to some people and that no matter what evidence either way is presented will refuse to bow down to the other 'side'
This only matters if you think the "other side" is atheism. Since it's not, you have to ask yourself why creationists are trying to make evolution be atheism.
There is no need to imply that people are cowardly or anything else of a similar nature.
I'm only "cowardly" because I won't tell Micaiah my personal worldview. Since I don't think that constitutes cowardice because the evidence and arguments are independent of my worldview, I don't take Micaiah's views seriously. Also, since Micaiah knows I accept evolution, from his viewpoint I can't be Christian whether I claim to be or not. So why bother when he has already told us what the answer must be?I feel that personally creationism vs. evolution or six 24hr periods vs. billions of years is largely irrelevant to whether you are a man of faith or not.
Again, join the vast majority of Christians and Christian denominations. Go to http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/4650_statements_from_religious_orga_3_13_2001.asp and see the number of denominations that agree with you.
I don't believe that the bible is a science book,
And it's not, so don't trap yourself into trying to make it one by looking whether days means millions of years. Look for the theology.
There, was that easy enough?
Welcome aboard.
Upvote
0
lucaspa
Legend
LOL!! Nice try at coopting my logic. First, I never claimed you said that directly. I only claimed that I can't be a Christian according to your standards. My exact words were "Also, since Micaiah knows I accept evolution, from his viewpoint I can't be Christian whether I claim to be or not." You are claiming something I did not say. Read Matthew 7:5.
Micaiah, you have repeatedly stated in several threads that anyone accepting evolution can't be a Christian. Care for me to look those posts up?
Let's follow the logic here:
1. Anyone accepting evolution can't be a Christian.
2. I accept evolution.
3. Therefore, I can't be a Christian.
4. So, even were I to state I was Christian, you would reject that because of my stance on evolution.
See any flaws with the logic? It's a lose-lose situation for me. So why play a game you set up that I can only lose?
Upvote
0
The saved, argument, a last ditch effort or show creationism is better than evolution.
If one subscribes to evolution, one can be saved. Just like if one subscribes to creationism.
Lets see, the basics of "being saved" are that you believe that jesus, the son of god, died on the cross for our sins.
So, untill someone can show me where evolution says, jesus didnt die on the cross for our sins, then, yes, evolutionists can be saved.
If one subscribes to evolution, one can be saved. Just like if one subscribes to creationism.
Lets see, the basics of "being saved" are that you believe that jesus, the son of god, died on the cross for our sins.
So, untill someone can show me where evolution says, jesus didnt die on the cross for our sins, then, yes, evolutionists can be saved.
Upvote
0
Yesterday at 10:47 PM now_I_am_found said this in Post #122
Many people in the US discuss this topic on regular basis. Many people believe that the "six day creation" in the Bible is a metaphor for many years. I personally believe that the Bible has it the right way. I think that God created the world in six days. He created the animals the way he said they did. He created all the animals. There is nothing that God " let evolve" into something that he didn't mean to be on earth. Hope that gives you some insight.
The fossil evidence indicates that roughly 99% of all the species that have lived on earth have gone extinct. So the millions of species that we see on earth now, are only 1% of all the species that have existed throughout the history of the earth.
So your God created 99 out of 100 species with the intention that they would become extinct within a few thousand years?
Upvote
0
Aduro Amnis
Self-proclaimed reincarnation of Eugene V. Debs
Upvote
0
Similar threads
