Do creationists accept the evolution of plants?

[juvenissun]

Not even close. They were "conventional wisdom" back in the day.

All conventional wisdom is based on science. Otherwise, it won't last.

 

[juvenissun]

Really. Please, show me these passages where the Bible teaches responsible use of natural resources.

A very common one: farmers should let their land "rest" for a whole year for every six years of use.

We do not care about that at all today. Thus we have many problems due to not obeying that. If you think about this law carefully, you will see an amazing amount of applications included in it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

A very common one: farmers should let their land "rest" for a whole year for every six years of use.

We do not care about that at all today. Thus we have many problems due to not obeying that. If you think about this law carefully, you will see an amazing amount of applications included in it.

No, not really. The farmers of long ago noticed that soils dig get "tired". That was mainly because nitrogen got used up. Resting was a good idea. Then we found the even better practice of crop rotation. Some corps would return nitrogen to soils such as soybean or clover. Now we use fertilizers and they allow a higher production than ever. In fact the world's population would probably be threatened without them.

 

[Strathos]

All conventional wisdom is based on science. Otherwise, it won't last.

...It didn't last.

 

[Strathos]

Jesus calling out my God why have you forsaken me was because Jesus came as a man and was able to feel all the pain and suffering of what we would have felt in that situation. So if you can imagine which we can't that you are nailed to a cross and in pain after many hours you maybe hallucinating or delirious or feeling totally confused and abandoned. You are close to death and probably slipping in and out of conciousness.

True... His body still had the same limitations of human bodies (or else He would have been unable to be crucified in the first place).

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Jesus calling out my God why have you forsaken me was because Jesus came as a man and was able to feel all the pain and suffering of what we would have felt in that situation. So if you can imagine which we can't that you are nailed to a cross and in pain after many hours you maybe hallucinating or delirious or feeling totally confused and abandoned. You are close to death and probably slipping in and out of conciousness.

No, because Jesus was God's only begotten son "before" he was sent to earth. The only thing directly created by God, after which all "other" things were created "through" that firstborn son by God, and "for" that firstborn son. Which is why the son can do nothing on his own.

God "sent" His only begotten son, he did not send Himself to become His only begotten son.

 

[juvenissun]

No, not really. The farmers of long ago noticed that soils dig get "tired". That was mainly because nitrogen got used up. Resting was a good idea. Then we found the even better practice of crop rotation. Some corps would return nitrogen to soils such as soybean or clover. Now we use fertilizers and they allow a higher production than ever. In fact the world's population would probably be threatened without them.

What you said is exactly how problems developed (rather than solved).
We should stick with what the Bible teaches and do not change it. Then we will not have most of our current environmental problems.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

What you said is exactly how problems developed (rather than solved).
We should stick with what the Bible teaches and do not change it. Then we will not have most of our current environmental problems.

Well, as long as you're not bothered about a huge increase in world starvation, it sounds a cracking idea.

 

[Tellastory]

On another topic, when presented with clear evidence for evolution above the species level in plants, a creationist said this:

So, I am curious, is this the opinion of most creationists? Do they really think that plants evolve and animals do not? And if plants were created the same way as animals why would they evolve while animals do not?

I do not believe plants evolve. A rose by any other name is still a rose.

If the plants have been around as long as "they" say they have been like the animals, then why are their former lesser evolved existence still around? They would be all subjective to whatever caused the evolution of the one species to another and so they should be all evolving together.

But they are not, obviously. Why? Because the only "evolution" that is going on is having a new species of a rose but still a rose because it is not in its genetic makeup to vary any other way than to be a rose.

The same would be true for animals.

Then the subject of cross species comes up where in this "new" animal, they can no longer reproduce for that libe of new animal to continue, and yet it has been declared by educated evolutionists that evolution does not happen by hybridization.

Okay then. That leaves no way for evolution to happen when the cause of it is unknown and science is assuming that there is a link between variety of plants as they do with variety of animals.

"Science" is unwilling to entertain the notion that everything was present like the porcupine with the dinosaurs as they existed with man as he did with the apes by the sixth day of creation even though the laws of science supports that "fable" more than the fable of the evolution theory.

The 1st law of thermodynamics that states nothing can be created from nothing nor destroyed, then where is that extra genetic information is going to come from to be added to a living organism's DNA? Nothing?

So that is why we can observe the Law of Biogenesis where an ape will always be an ape just as a rose will always be a rose. You can have a variety of apes and a variety of roses, even something not seen before; ( but that does not mean it had never existed before ) but an ape will always be an ape just as a rose will always be a rose because there is no way for extra genetic information to add itself to a given DNA.

Unless you are a mad scientist, but then that points to intelligent design.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

If the plants have been around as long as "they" say they have been like the animals, then why are their former lesser evolved existence still around?

I wonder, if we correct this almost legendary mistake, will everything suddenly become clear for you?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I do not believe plants evolve. A rose by any other name is still a rose.

If the plants have been around as long as "they" say they have been like the animals, then why are their former lesser evolved existence still around? They would be all subjective to whatever caused the evolution of the one species to another and so they should be all evolving together.

But they are not, obviously. Why? Because the only "evolution" that is going on is having a new species of a rose but still a rose because it is not in its genetic makeup to vary any other way than to be a rose.

The same would be true for animals.

Then the subject of cross species comes up where in this "new" animal, they can no longer reproduce for that libe of new animal to continue, and yet it has been declared by educated evolutionists that evolution does not happen by hybridization.

Okay then. That leaves no way for evolution to happen when the cause of it is unknown and science is assuming that there is a link between variety of plants as they do with variety of animals.

"Science" is unwilling to entertain the notion that everything was present like the porcupine with the dinosaurs as they existed with man as he did with the apes by the sixth day of creation even though the laws of science supports that "fable" more than the fable of the evolution theory.

The 1st law of thermodynamics that states nothing can be created from nothing nor destroyed, then where is that extra genetic information is going to come from to be added to a living organism's DNA? Nothing?

So that is why we can observe the Law of Biogenesis where an ape will always be an ape just as a rose will always be a rose. You can have a variety of apes and a variety of roses, even something not seen before; ( but that does not mean it had never existed before ) but an ape will always be an ape just as a rose will always be a rose because there is no way for extra genetic information to add itself to a given DNA.

Unless you are a mad scientist, but then that points to intelligent design.

A post full of misunderstanding.

Let's start with a simple error. The first law of thermodynamics says that ENERGY cannot be created or destroyed. Information is not energy.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I do not believe plants evolve. A rose by any other name is still a rose.

If the plants have been around as long as "they" say they have been like the animals, then why are their former lesser evolved existence still around? They would be all subjective to whatever caused the evolution of the one species to another and so they should be all evolving together.

But they are not, obviously. Why? Because the only "evolution" that is going on is having a new species of a rose but still a rose because it is not in its genetic makeup to vary any other way than to be a rose.

But that is what the theory of evolution says too.

Let's look at man and trace our history back.

Man shares a common ancestor with other great apes, and that is fine because we are great apes too. That fact was known long before Darwin's time.

Man shares a common ancestor with monkeys and the proper terminology that describes that ancestor would be simian. And we are simians still today.

Man shares a common ancestor with dogs and cats and that ancestor was a mammal, and we are still mammals today/

Man shares a common ancestor with reptiles and amphibians and that ancestor was a tetrapod, and we are still tetrapods today.

Man shares a common ancestor with fish and that ancestor was a vertebrate. And lookie, we still have backbones. We are still vertebrates today.

It is impossible to predict what our descendants will evolve into. But no matter what they will still be men.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Jesus calling out my God why have you forsaken me was because Jesus came as a man and was able to feel all the pain and suffering of what we would have felt in that situation. So if you can imagine which we can't that you are nailed to a cross and in pain after many hours you maybe hallucinating or delirious or feeling totally confused and abandoned. You are close to death and probably slipping in and out of conciousness.

Yeah, but to those who consider Jesus to be god, it is kind of a weird statement. I mean, how could one forsake themselves, let alone have an outburst like that about it?

 

[stevevw]

Yeah, but to those who consider Jesus to be god, it is kind of a weird statement. I mean, how could one forsake themselves, let alone have an outburst like that about it?

Jesus isn't forsaking Himself and the outburst as you say would be something that any man would do in that situation. He prayed to His father in the garden of Gethsemane. His father said He was pleased with Him and Gave him so that we may be saved. Their relationship is all through the new testament showing that the Father and the Son are two separate entities.

But Jesus had all the qualities of God and God all the qualities of Jesus. The qualities of Jesus are what created everything and were there before everything. In the beginning was the word and the word was God. Jesus is the word and the word was made flesh. The trinity of God is a hard concept for us to understand but God the father and Jesus His son are two separate entities.

But the important thing for us is that Jesus was God in the flesh. He came so that we could know the qualities of God. So God came from the seemly distant and obscure place we think is heaven down to us so that we could then know of God and not be wondering or having all these guesses as to what he was like. The other side of this was that Jesus as God gave up His power and position to become man so that He took on the sin of man. So each could know what the other was. So even though Jesus was God He didn't use any powers to save himself but as a man with all His weaknesses and sinful nature was obedient to God. This showed that we can also be the same. So accepting Christ means we crucify our sinful natures with Christs death and we are raised with Him to become a new person with a Godly nature which is the spirit of God.

 

[stevevw]

But that is what the theory of evolution says too.

Let's look at man and trace our history back.

Man shares a common ancestor with other great apes, and that is fine because we are great apes too. That fact was known long before Darwin's time.

Man shares a common ancestor with monkeys and the proper terminology that describes that ancestor would be simian. And we are simians still today.

Man shares a common ancestor with dogs and cats and that ancestor was a mammal, and we are still mammals today/

Man shares a common ancestor with reptiles and amphibians and that ancestor was a tetrapod, and we are still tetrapods today.

Man shares a common ancestor with fish and that ancestor was a vertebrate. And lookie, we still have backbones. We are still vertebrates today.

It is impossible to predict what our descendants will evolve into. But no matter what they will still be men.

And man shares a common ancestor with a bacteria and ancestor was a um what was that ancestor. Oh thats right nothing. So all this great complexity and what mimics something that was created came from nothing.

 

[46AND2]

Jesus calling out my God why have you forsaken me was because Jesus came as a man and was able to feel all the pain and suffering of what we would have felt in that situation. So if you can imagine which we can't that you are nailed to a cross and in pain after many hours you maybe hallucinating or delirious or feeling totally confused and abandoned. You are close to death and probably slipping in and out of conciousness.

Sorry, that explanation makes no sense to me. It is an anthropomorphic description of a supposedly omnipotent being. It makes FAR more sense to see it as a story written by men, with the intent of eliciting human emotion from the story.

If Jesus knew what was going on (he's omniscient, after all, right?) how could he possibly feel forsaken? He knows the plan, the question makes no sense.

 

[stevevw]

Sorry, that explanation makes no sense to me. It is an anthropomorphic description of a supposedly omnipotent being. It makes FAR more sense to see it as a story written by men, with the intent of eliciting human emotion from the story.

If Jesus knew what was going on (he's omniscient, after all, right?) how could he possibly feel forsaken? He knows the plan, the question makes no sense.

Hello again 46AND2 long time no debate.
The idea of God coming as man is a difficult concept in itself to comprehend if it really happened. How do we know that Jesus didn't give up all that to become a man. The Godly nature He had was more to do with being totally obedient to God. He may not have been able to be the entity He was in Heaven as with being omniscient. His Godly ability was that He could be perfectly obedient and do Gods will. So in that sense He could channel the power of God through Himself. Just as He said that we can also do this and be like Christ. But who knows He may have known what was going on but if He is to be obedient and yet be a man then He is caught between a rock and a hard place. He may well have had a head start I dont fully understand the position He was in. But even so it doesn't take away that He was able to feel all the pain and things that we feel yet tap into God and perform great miracles.

If it was based on emotion then I really cant see that being so much of a influence that it drove many to sacrifice their lives and the church to explode and grow so quickly. Something great happened and greater than any feeling that people could have. Those sort of things have an effect but are usually limited and will fade out. This has continued to grow and lasted a long time and is still influencing people, to the point of sacrificing their lives in one way or another.

 

[EternalDragon]

Sorry, that explanation makes no sense to me. It is an anthropomorphic description of a supposedly omnipotent being. It makes FAR more sense to see it as a story written by men, with the intent of eliciting human emotion from the story.

If Jesus knew what was going on (he's omniscient, after all, right?) how could he possibly feel forsaken? He knows the plan, the question makes no sense.

His human aspect had to die on that cross. I would have figured you would have known that.

 

[46AND2]

His human aspect had to die on that cross. I would have figured you would have known that.

Oh, I know the argument...it's just utterly illogical.

 

[46AND2]

Hello again 46AND2 long time no debate.
The idea of God coming as man is a difficult concept in itself to comprehend if it really happened. How do we know that Jesus didn't give up all that to become a man. The Godly nature He had was more to do with being totally obedient to God. He may not have been able to be the entity He was in Heaven as with being omniscient. His Godly ability was that He could be perfectly obedient and do Gods will. So in that sense He could channel the power of God through Himself. Just as He said that we can also do this and be like Christ. But who knows He may have known what was going on but if He is to be obedient and yet be a man then He is caught between a rock and a hard place. He may well have had a head start I dont fully understand the position He was in. But even so it doesn't take away that He was able to feel all the pain and things that we feel yet tap into God and perform great miracles.

If it was based on emotion then I really cant see that being so much of a influence that it drove many to sacrifice their lives and the church to explode and grow so quickly. Something great happened and greater than any feeling that people could have. Those sort of things have an effect but are usually limited and will fade out. This has continued to grow and lasted a long time and is still influencing people, to the point of sacrificing their lives in one way or another.

People are driven to sacrifice their lives for lies (or legend) all the time. All it takes is a belief that it is true. Suicide bombers give their lives, cult followers give their lives, and as far as exploding quickly, why not the Mormon church? It's only been around 150 years, has a huge following, and is one of the richest churches in the world.

Popularity and martyrdom are not legitimate determinations for veracity.