• 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.

Genesis Creation OR THIS?

mindlight

See in the dark
Site Supporter
Dec 20, 2003
14,268
2,992
London, UK
✟1,001,595.00
Country
Germany
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Oddly enough the Catholic church has progressed in science more than some of the Protestant evangelicals. The Vatican has a staff of scientist that concede that the Bible isn't necessarily scientific.

"Progress" in this case may simply mean adapted to the prevailing consensus more readily. They also did this at the time of Galileo and Copernicus when most thinking people thought the stars and sun went round the Earth. Oddly on both occasions the church was guilty of a form of worldliness that mistook the spirit of the age for that of God.
 
Upvote 0

mindlight

See in the dark
Site Supporter
Dec 20, 2003
14,268
2,992
London, UK
✟1,001,595.00
Country
Germany
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Hasn't the evolution debate always just been with the fundamentalists?

The idea that creation is young and done by the design of God rather than by a combination of chance and naturalistic processes was the original Jewish and Christian views as is evidenced by the Orthodox and Jewish calendars for instance. Lyles and Darwins views were not the prevailing view of the mainstream church in the nineteenth century.

The association with a form of American fundamentalism that appeared in the 20s or 30s is a convenient atheistic liberal fiction that served and serves a variety of political purposes and not merely a debate about scientific theories.
 
Upvote 0

mindlight

See in the dark
Site Supporter
Dec 20, 2003
14,268
2,992
London, UK
✟1,001,595.00
Country
Germany
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
That's a fact.

When people are polled and asked why they left Christianity, one of the biggest reasons is fundamentalist beliefs.

It is in the list but since it is liberal churches losing believers rather than ones that preach God as Creator the view that this is the reason for these people leaving does not add up. Afterall the liberal churches that are losing people do not preach creationism.
 
Upvote 0

mindlight

See in the dark
Site Supporter
Dec 20, 2003
14,268
2,992
London, UK
✟1,001,595.00
Country
Germany
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Look into the "Gulo Pseudogene"

About the Gene:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L-gulonolactone_oxidase

In the Context of Evolution
http://www.evolutionarymodel.com/pseudogenes.htm

You can find any needed refrences at those two links, and elsewhere I imagine.

As I've said the evidence from genetics is really overwhelming in establishing the veracity of the Theory of Evolution. The majority of Christians embrace this, the rest need to come to the same conclusion. The author of scripture and of nature are one and the same.

Oh come on that is not evidence relevant to a discussion on evolution.

Basically you are saying that some creatures have the ability to create Vitamin C and humans and bats appear to have the shadow of this ability. Therefore the shadow is evidence of brokenness. Since humans and apes share the same shadow and therefore gene deficiency in your view that proves their common ancestry.

The thing is you do not have DNA from before this functionality was broken to compare with. So what seem like shadows may serve a different purpose.

If God created mankind in a perfect world as the bible says then the design of man was also perfect as orange trees were readily available and man and ape had the hands and fingers to pick and peel them.

On the other hand if man was indeed originally created with this ability to generate Vitamin C it is also possible that God himself took this ability away as a part of the judgment of the flood.

Either Creationist scenario or indeed the evolutionist one are ultimately speculative and unprovable. There is no way to demonstrate the theory scientifically With a degree of certainty.

So simple fact is we do not have this ability and do not know if we lost it on the way or never had it in the firstplace.
 
Upvote 0

Givemeareason

Well-Known Member
May 21, 2015
912
94
✟24,148.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
It is in the list but since it is liberal churches losing believers rather than ones that preach God as Creator the view that this is the reason for these people leaving does not add up. Afterall the liberal churches that are losing people do not preach creationism.
My guess is that the fundamentalists have made Christianity look so bad that people with clear minds don't want to be associated with it any longer. Of course such people would be drawn to liberal churches if at all consequently liberal churches suffer the most. On the other hand the fundamentalist types have become so entrenched in their ignorance they no longer listen to reason and promote things like Creationism and hate for gays and on and on. Fundamentalists have become like a cult and they have made the whole faith look bad.
 
Upvote 0

mindlight

See in the dark
Site Supporter
Dec 20, 2003
14,268
2,992
London, UK
✟1,001,595.00
Country
Germany
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Literally everything you just said is pseudoscientific nonsense that has been refuted time and time again. You cannot make a case for YEC by paraphrazing Answers in Genesis.

Confirmation bias. You are fishing for 'evidence' to support your foregone conclusion while ignoring any and all evidence that contradicts your narrowly defined view of creation. This is exactly what AIG and ICR do. There is absolutely nothing scientific about it. Using their same fallacious reasoning I could convince you that the Easter Bunny created the universe out of a magical egg six thousand years ago.

I agree that this is what a lot of creationists do - make the evidence fit a pre established position. I also think that this is what evolutionists are doing.

The assumptions of creationists are God did it and a straight reading of the bible tells us how.

The assumptions of an Old Earth Evolutionist are naturalism and uniformitarianism.

Since neither can prove their assumptions using proper science i must regard both sets of attempts as scientifically speculative. However the creationists affirm a position based on scripture their position seems overall to be more credible.
 
Upvote 0

mindlight

See in the dark
Site Supporter
Dec 20, 2003
14,268
2,992
London, UK
✟1,001,595.00
Country
Germany
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
In your opinion then, God decides to inherently plant the seed in some people, but not others?

Why would a God who cares for all his creation do that?

Why do 2/3 of the worlds population not agree with Christianity? Did God choose to doom all these people, by not inherently planting the seed in them?

Why is their salvation your problem? Is the more relevant question a personal one about how we encounter God and respond to Him? Is God capable of acting fairly and with a greater understanding of all people on this Earth than you are?
 
Upvote 0

mindlight

See in the dark
Site Supporter
Dec 20, 2003
14,268
2,992
London, UK
✟1,001,595.00
Country
Germany
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The problem with these wonders which humbled Job is that these wonders themselves are now humbled by what we have now come to realize is really around us. Just for a refresher a light year is the distance that light travels in a years time at a speed of around 283,000 miles in one second as I recall. Most everything visible in the sky is only a very tiny few hundred light years away. Yet our puny little galaxy we exist inside of is something on the order of 100,000 light years across and like 99 percent of it is so obscured to us we can't even see what we are inside of. That's why we look at the photo of the next closest similar galaxy over to get a better idea. So on that basis Job's view of the sky just wasn't very impressive at all. But I guess it was good enough for goat herders.

That I have to confess is a powerful scientific argument for an old Universe. Some creationists place a gap between Genesis 1 in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth .... Then the rest.

It is only this argument that tempts me to Old Age Creationism but overall I prefer Young Earth Creationism.

There are various possible answers on the lines of:

1)We do not really know how light travels in deep space.
2)The speed of light may be influenced by variables we have no experience of in this solar system - jumping through dark matter blah blah.
3) Some kind of wierd string theory about light finding ways to travel instantaneously through doors between parallel universes.
4) some kind of time dilation effect that means a minute on earth is millions of years out there.
5) Light has slowed down since creation.

Personally I do not have an answer that I am happy with that contradicts the established scientific view of great age and distance.
 
Upvote 0

mindlight

See in the dark
Site Supporter
Dec 20, 2003
14,268
2,992
London, UK
✟1,001,595.00
Country
Germany
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I was not aware Arcturus the name of a well known star, Pliedes the name of an open star cluster or Orion a most prominent constellation were in the bible. Of what significance were these things in the bible?

Cool question. Obviously these are Greek names being used in the translation from the Septuagint. But the Massoretic Text uses Kesil to describe Orion. It means fool apparently.

wikipedia said:
The Bible mentions Orion three times, naming it "Kesil" (כסיל, literally - fool). Though, this name perhaps is etymologically connected with "Kislev", the name for the ninth month of the Hebrew calendar (i.e. November–December), which, in turn, may derive from the Hebrew root K-S-L as in the words "kesel, kisla" (כֵּסֶל, כִּסְלָה, hope, positiveness), i.e. hope for winter rains.): Job 9:9 ("He is the maker of the Bear and Orion"), Job 38:31 ("Can you loosen Orion's belt?"), and Amos 5:8 ("He who made the Pleiades and Orion").
 
Upvote 0

mindlight

See in the dark
Site Supporter
Dec 20, 2003
14,268
2,992
London, UK
✟1,001,595.00
Country
Germany
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
My guess is that the fundamentalists have made Christianity look so bad that people with clear minds don't want to be associated with it any longer. Of course such people would be drawn to liberal churches if at all consequently liberal churches suffer the most. On the other hand the fundamentalist types have become so entrenched in their ignorance they no longer listen to reason and promote things like Creationism and hate for gays and on and on. Fundamentalists have become like a cult and they have made the whole faith look bad.

If your image of fundamentalists. Is of the Westboro Baptist church then maybe but most Fundamentalists do not hate gays, they love them enough to tell them the truth.

The rest of what you said sounded like smudged thinking to me. People say Creationism is why they leave their church which does not even preach that. That makes no sense at all.
 
Upvote 0

Givemeareason

Well-Known Member
May 21, 2015
912
94
✟24,148.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
If your image of fundamentalists. Is of the Westboro Baptist church then maybe but most Fundamentalists do not hate gays, they love them enough to tell them the truth.

The rest of what you said sounded like smudged thinking to me. People say Creationism is why they leave their church which does not even preach that. That makes no sense at all.

Words like debauchery abomination etc are not words of love. And it makes no sense because you are not reading what I said.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Colter
Upvote 0

Davian

fallible
May 30, 2011
14,100
1,181
West Coast of Canada
✟46,103.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Ignostic
Marital Status
Married
...
Origination is impossible...
...

There is NO POSSIBLE WAY this could happen.
...
There is no possibility that random amino acids formed proteins in an oxygen free environment
...
You neglected to show how you determined these things to be impossible.
Yes, we call them laws. Laws are universal, universally applicable and universally consistent. Our understanding of them may change, but the laws do not.
Are they not at the whim of your "God"?
The laws of physics preclude origination and allow for only the change of energy from organization to disorganization; usable energy to unusable energy. The universe is winding down and only God could have wound it up.
Just not in any way that you can demonstrate.
God is very much involved in this world and small miracles happen all the time.
Indeed. I got a parking spot right in front of the store I went to last night. Definitely a miracle. And I wasn't even praying for it.
God can tell us that and more.
Do you speak for this "God"? Or are you just giving us your interpretation of a book?
 
Upvote 0

KWCrazy

Newbie
Apr 13, 2009
7,229
1,993
Bowling Green, KY
✟90,577.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
You neglected to show how you determined these things to be impossible.

Ever hear of the first law of thermodynamics? It was in all the papers. It's a law of science which states that matter/energy cannot be created. Please stop pretending to believe in science because you obviously do not. You believe in evolution to the exclusion of contradictions in science and logic. You pretend that the hard laws of science do not exist so you can promote your pet theory. Then you pretend they don't exist. That's highly dishonest.
Are they not at the whim of your "God"?
The creation serves the Creator, not vice versa. Natural law has no being on God. Natural law is how the universe functions on its own. The Lord can intervene at any time.

Just not in any way that you can demonstrate.

Your ignorance of natural law does not constitute a valid argument. The laws of physics are laws because they are universally applicable and irrefutable. Rejecting science and calling that rejection scientific is sophomoric at best.

Do you speak for this "God"?
He speaks for Himself. Tell me. How do you interpret traffic laws? Are they just suggestions in a book written for new drivers, or do you really have to stop at stop signs? How do you interpret the instructions for assembling a bicycle? Why can't the big wheels go in front and the seat be on the bottom? How do you interpret "Lather, rinse, repeat?" Does that mean you should drink shampoo? Ambiguous things need interpretation. Things which are clearly explained do not.
 
Upvote 0

Givemeareason

Well-Known Member
May 21, 2015
912
94
✟24,148.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married

Ever hear of the first law of thermodynamics? It was in all the papers. It's a law of science which states that matter/energy cannot be created. Please stop pretending to believe in science because you obviously do not. You believe in evolution to the exclusion of contradictions in science and logic. You pretend that the hard laws of science do not exist so you can promote your pet theory. Then you pretend they don't exist. That's highly dishonest.

The creation serves the Creator, not vice versa. Natural law has no being on God. Natural law is how the universe functions on its own. The Lord can intervene at any time.


Your ignorance of natural law does not constitute a valid argument. The laws of physics are laws because they are universally applicable and irrefutable. Rejecting science and calling that rejection scientific is sophomoric at best.


He speaks for Himself. Tell me. How do you interpret traffic laws? Are they just suggestions in a book written for new drivers, or do you really have to stop at stop signs? How do you interpret the instructions for assembling a bicycle? Why can't the big wheels go in front and the seat be on the bottom? How do you interpret "Lather, rinse, repeat?" Does that mean you should drink shampoo? Ambiguous things need interpretation. Things which are clearly explained do not.

I did not start this thread to see it degenerate into another silly discussion of science vs religion. What I posed was an incredible awe inspiring view of what creation actually was versus a story that was written for goat herders.
 
Upvote 0

bhsmte

Newbie
Apr 26, 2013
52,761
11,792
✟254,941.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Why is their salvation your problem? Is the more relevant question a personal one about how we encounter God and respond to Him? Is God capable of acting fairly and with a greater understanding of all people on this Earth than you are?

I am just trying to reconcile a God who cares for all his creation with only planting the seed in who will be saved in a minority of the world's population, per what the poster stated.

Very legitimate question in my opinion.
 
Upvote 0

paulm50

Well-Known Member
Feb 5, 2014
1,253
110
✟2,061.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Ever hear of the first law of thermodynamics? It was in all the papers. It's a law of science which states that matter/energy cannot be created. Please stop pretending to believe in science because you obviously do not. You believe in evolution to the exclusion of contradictions in science and logic. You pretend that the hard laws of science do not exist so you can promote your pet theory. Then you pretend they don't exist. That's highly dishonest.

Very interesting. What it actually says is;
  1. The first law of thermodynamics doesn't actually specify that matter can neither be created nor destroyed, but instead that the total amount of energy in a closed system cannot be created nor destroyed (though itcan be changed from one form to another). Ask a Physicist Answers
So what caused the Big Bang? Because after that we had the matter/Energy needed.

Did a god create the Big Bang? Who cares? Seriously it will make little difference to our lives, maybe to our children's if they can make an appliance from it.

What we do know with no logical sense of contradiction is Genesis is wrong, even more wrong is the belief it all started 6,000 yeas ago. Because long before that, we have evidence of people all over the world. And while the Jews were goat herders, others were building temples, Burial Mounds, etc. Oldest monuments in the world.

Did a god create what Givemeareason posted? Maybe, but no one in Genesis had a clue about it, they could onlt see what you and I see looking out of our window, that was the extent of their Universe and no one told them otherwise.

•shemayim: heaven, sky, visible heavens, heaven as realm of the stars. Take it back to the very writings scripted in Hebrew, in Babylon to see how different they are to the truth.
 
Upvote 0

paulm50

Well-Known Member
Feb 5, 2014
1,253
110
✟2,061.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
I am just trying to reconcile a God who cares for all his creation with only planting the seed in who will be saved in a minority of the world's population, per what the poster stated.

Very legitimate question in my opinion.
If god God cares for all his creation. He has a very funny and bad way of showing it.

1. He wouldn't be relying on the church.
2. He wouldn't be relying on the bible.
3. He wouldn't be relying on you and I.

1. Is guilty of more abuses than you can throw a stick at. Christians are still debating what church to go to, whic is better than killing each other over the debate.
2. Mish Mash of inaccurate books.
3. We aren't up to the task.

4. It requires god to come back, and take control. Not by killing us all without telling us why and relying on Ancient Scribes to make up a story out of a natural event.
 
Upvote 0

Davian

fallible
May 30, 2011
14,100
1,181
West Coast of Canada
✟46,103.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Ignostic
Marital Status
Married
Ever hear of the first law of thermodynamics? It was in all the papers. It's a law of science which states that matter/energy cannot be created. Please stop pretending to believe in science because you obviously do not. You believe in evolution to the exclusion of contradictions in science and logic. You pretend that the hard laws of science do not exist so you can promote your pet theory. Then you pretend they don't exist. That's highly dishonest.


Inflation theory allows for the creation of energy without violating that law. Or are we to use your interpretation of astrophysics?

^_^

The creation serves the Creator, not vice versa. Natural law has no being on God. Natural law is how the universe functions on its own. The Lord can intervene at any time.

Your ignorance of natural law does not constitute a valid argument. The laws of physics are laws because they are universally applicable and irrefutable. Rejecting science and calling that rejection scientific is sophomoric at best.


He speaks for Himself. Tell me. How do you interpret traffic laws? Are they just suggestions in a book written for new drivers, or do you really have to stop at stop signs? How do you interpret the instructions for assembling a bicycle? Why can't the big wheels go in front and the seat be on the bottom? How do you interpret "Lather, rinse, repeat?" Does that mean you should drink shampoo? Ambiguous things need interpretation. Things which are clearly explained do not.
Why should we use your interpretation of the bible?
 
Upvote 0

KWCrazy

Newbie
Apr 13, 2009
7,229
1,993
Bowling Green, KY
✟90,577.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I did not start this thread to see it degenerate into another silly discussion of science vs religion.
.
It's more like your version of science VS real science. Real science doesn't put agenda above an understanding of natural law.
What I posed was an incredible awe inspiring view of what creation actually was
Your version of creation. It's interesting that you use that word, though, because creation requires a creator. Nice admission on your part. The universe is truly an amazing testament to the glory of the Creator.
versus a story that was written for goat herders.
I should remind you that the goat herders were illiterate. The Bible was written for the rabbis and teachers to educate the goat herders. It was held in the possession of the educated, not the ignorant. The early Catholic church in fact considered it a sin for laymen to read the Scriptures. They wanted to control the message, in part because some of the things they teach are not found in the King James Bible.
 
Upvote 0