How Can We Improve Origins Theology > Creationism?

[mark kennedy]

Be advised there is a new moderator on this forum. I am opening this thread for Creationist to post whatever concerns they might want to express in the open forum. I am a Young Earth Creationist due primarily to my religious convictions regarding the historical content of the Bible. I have read, studied and debated the Creation/Evolution controversy for well over two years. This forum was started in order for creationists to have a place to discuss their views on the Origin of life openly without having to debate.

I would like to know from the Creationists on here what they think this forum should be and how they feel it should be moderated. If you feel uncomfortable posting to this thread feel free to PM me with any concerns. Make no mistake, This is a Creationist only discussion forum and Theistic Evolutionists are not allowed to post nonfellowship posts, debate threads or to criticize creationists in this forum.

Grace and Peace,
Mark

 

[vossler]

Mark,

Personally I'd like to limit any kind of discussions here to only Creationists. When I come here I'm looking for what other Creationists have to say and not repeated remarks from other non-creationists. If I was looking for that kind of feedback I'd post in the regular Origins forum. I realize many times TEs or others post here to just pass on 'information' and not to debate, but as the old saying says; 'the road to destruction is paved with good intentions' therefore its best to just limit the posting to only creationists. I do likewise in the TE forum.

JMO

 

[mark kennedy]

Mark,

Personally I'd like to limit any kind of discussions here to only Creationists. When I come here I'm looking for what other Creationists have to say and not repeated remarks from other non-creationists. If I was looking for that kind of feedback I'd post in the regular Origins forum. I realize many times TEs or others post here to just pass on 'information' and not to debate, but as the old saying says; 'the road to destruction is paved with good intentions' therefore its best to just limit the posting to only creationists. I do likewise in the TE forum.

JMO

I was hoping when the forum started that the discussion would focus more on redemptive history and Christian theology. The forum has not been moderated very much probably because it doesn't see a lot of traffic. The sticky at the top of the forum makes it clear that TE views are not welcome here. If theistic evolutionists and creationists want to debate and share ideas there is a subforum for them to do so. I expect I will have to remind people of this from time to time. Thanks for your input.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[michaelmonfre]

I Wanted To Know If Creationists Believe That Noah's Flood Was World-wide.
Does The Opposing Viewpoint Believe Noah's Flood As Local?

I Have A Hard Time Accepting The Earth Is Millions Of Years Old When God Uses Ordinal Numbers In The Beginnings Of Genesis. I Am Fascinated By The Gap Theory Which Is Different Than Hugh Ross Who Believes The Earth Is 4.5 Billion Years Old.

I Don't Care If A Person Believes If The Earth Was Created In Millions Of Years Or 7 Literal Days Or The Gap Theory But I Have A Problem With Someone Who Believes In A Local Flood Of Noah.

 

[vossler]

I was hoping when the forum started that the discussion would focus more on redemptive history and Christian theology. The forum has not been moderated very much probably because it doesn't see a lot of traffic. The sticky at the top of the forum makes it clear that TE views are not welcome here. If theistic evolutionists and creationists want to debate and share ideas there is a subforum for them to do so. I expect I will have to remind people of this from time to time. Thanks for your input.

Grace and peace,
Mark

My thoughts exactly! I love the history and theology of our origins. Unfortunately that seems to be of little concern in the Origins Theology forum and I was hoping it could be the theme here. We shall see! Thanks Mark for attempting to regain some control here.

 

[mark kennedy]

My thoughts exactly! I love the history and theology of our origins. Unfortunately that seems to be of little concern in the Origins Theology forum and I was hoping it could be the theme here. We shall see! Thanks Mark for attempting to regain some control here.

Rest assured brother, this is a Christian Forum but real restraint goes with the territory. There were a number of creationists that simply vanished from these forums and I think it was because they were treated badly, not by the staff but the way things happen in these debate forums. This whole issue is so difficult that people just get tired of it, deep down I think that is the whole stategy.

I simply won't tolerate creationists being harrased in this forum as long as I have the responsiblity to prevent this from happening here. I am tired of talking to evolutionists, their arguments don't interest me anymore. I want to see creationists expressing their views without the clamor of harsh criticism wearing them out.

Adam was made to work the Garden of Eden and one of his first tasks was to name the animals. I find it strange that creationists would ever be alienated from the life sciences, I think it an impossiblity. Don't get me wrong, if a theistic evolutionist wants to post a fellowship post, I have no problem with that. On the other hand, if a couple of creationists have points they want to argue, this is a good place for them to vent. I think creationists will post here if they know that they can do so without harsh and unprovoked debate. Like you say, we will see.

Any problems or questions feel free to PM me or report any post or poster that you think is out of bounds. By the way, I am toying with the idea of a sticky post (a permenant post at the top of the thread) that would outline what creationism should be in these forums. I would have to talk about it with the senior staff, obviously, but any thoughts along these lines would be welcome.

This forum has been set aside for Creationists only and I believe, that is how it should be used.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

I Wanted To Know If Creationists Believe That Noah's Flood Was World-wide.

Yes, I believe that it was.

Does The Opposing Viewpoint Believe Noah's Flood As Local?

Yes, some good solid Fundamentalist and evangelical scholars have said that it was. I don't know how they deal with this however:

[BIBLE]Genesis 7:20[/BIBLE]

I Have A Hard Time Accepting The Earth Is Millions Of Years Old When God Uses Ordinal Numbers In The Beginnings Of Genesis. I Am Fascinated By The Gap Theory Which Is Different Than Hugh Ross Who Believes The Earth Is 4.5 Billion Years Old.

I find it fascinating that anyone thinks that they have a clue how to measure the age of the earth. It is concievable that the earth was billions of years old when God decided to bring forth life from the darkness, but it is simply unnessacary.

I Don't Care If A Person Believes If The Earth Was Created In Millions Of Years Or 7 Literal Days Or The Gap Theory But I Have A Problem With Someone Who Believes In A Local Flood Of Noah.

A local flood is not what is described in Genesis, plain and simple. Genesis is very clear that the earth was covered, completly. I don't really have a problem with a person who believes that it was but the Scriptures are very clear that the earth was covered, completly dispite their incredulity.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Dust and Ashes]

I don't frequent the Origins forums simply because of the lack of charity on both sides but one thing I would recommend is that creationists should keep in mind that referring to non-creationists as "so-called Christians" or otherwise implying that they are not Christians is not in keeping with the rules of CF. I have been shocked at how unChrist-like people in the origin forums with Christian icons act.

Regardless of how right you might be, if you don't have/demonstrate charity, you are missing the mark. That's a paraphrase but it still carries the point.

I don't really know where I belong between these two forums since C/E is not an issue for me anymore so I would likely be unwelcome in either. I just wanted to let you know that TEs do read this forum and if they are barred from responding and moderation is done with a us against them attitude, it will not be a good thing for the future of this forum. It will become a dumping ground for unChristian statements where people can't defend themselves and I'm sure reports will be made liberally.

I know most of you don't do this but some do and those are the ones that people remember and that image sticks with people.

Keeping that in mind is one thing I would recommend to make this forum better.

Forgive me.

 

[mark kennedy]

I don't frequent the Origins forums simply because of the lack of charity on both sides but one thing I would recommend is that creationists should keep in mind that referring to non-creationists as "so-called Christians" or otherwise implying that they are not Christians is not in keeping with the rules of CF. I have been shocked at how unChrist-like people in the origin forums with Christian icons act.

You are quite right and this is expressly forbidden in the rules, specifically:

Rule No. 1 - No "Flaming"

You may discuss another individual's beliefs or religious organization but you will not harass, insult, belittle, threaten, defame or flame the individual (member or non-member) as this is considered personal (ad hominem) attacks in posts, PMs and any other communication within the site. This includes, but is not limited to:

a. Directly calling another member “cultist”, “heretic”, “bigot” or "apostate" as these are personal attacks and are not conducive to civil discussion.

b.Calling famous individuals derogatory names (unless it is a well-known nickname) as this may be considered defamation.​

1.2 You will not directly call another member or his or her religious organization a “cult”, “heretic”, "apostate", “demonic” or “satanic” nor imply other churches or denominations are not "true churches" by calling your own church the "one true church", but you may discuss doctrines, teachings, practices or writings of other religious organizations as long as empirical evidence is provided.

1.3 You will only post negative statements about another individual’s belief or religious organization (including non-Christian religions) with objective evidence provided. Members are allowed to say “The doctrines X church is false because of Y scriptures and Z other relevant evidence”.

1.4 You will not misquote another member regardless of context.

1.5 You will not directly state or otherwise imply that another member is not a Christian if he or she falls under Rule 6.5 and 6.6 and he or she does not have a hidden faith icon without providing substantiation from scripture or doctrine or historic church writtings.

Just in case someone is not familar with the term 'ad hominem' it literally means 'to the man'. The idea is that if someone makes an argument you don't agree with and you respond that you don't agree because your too stupid to understand, you just got personal. This is considered a fallacy in philosophical debates because it drags the subject into personal attacks that derail the original topic.

Regardless of how right you might be, if you don't have/demonstrate charity, you are missing the mark. That's a paraphrase but it still carries the point.

Toleration is encouraged on these boards but very hard to maintain in debate forums, things just get too heated. I honestly think that if a TE offered an olive branch or even an outright atheistic materialist it would be accepted here. In this forum it is permissable for a TE to post as long as they are posting in order to reach out to creationists in the spirit of fellowship. This brings up an interesting point, I don't have a lot of patience for creationists belittling TE either. If TE advocates are not permitted to defend themselves I don't think it is right that they should be criticized here either.

I don't really know where I belong between these two forums since C/E is not an issue for me anymore so I would likely be unwelcome in either. I just wanted to let you know that TEs do read this forum and if they are barred from responding and moderation is done with a us against them attitude, it will not be a good thing for the future of this forum. It will become a dumping ground for unChristian statements where people can't defend themselves and I'm sure reports will be made liberally.

I personally won't tolerate flames in this forum no matter who posts them. If I get a report and find that a flame was provoked I will deal with both of the posters. Hopefully, a couple of PMs will quite the situation but I won't censor a substantive post because someone dosn't like it. I cannot imagine an unchristian post supporting creationism being anything other then counter productive.

I know most of you don't do this but some do and those are the ones that people remember and that image sticks with people.

Keeping that in mind is one thing I would recommend to make this forum better.

Forgive me.

I appreciate your input and while you don't seem to be procreationism you were polite and substantive in your post. I would hope that Christians that don't have an opinion one way or the other could feel confortable coming in here and finding out what creationism is all about. I would like to think that with all God had to go through to forgive us our sins we could tolerate a couple of questions about creationism from time to time.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[shernren]

This brings up an interesting point, I don't have a lot of patience for creationists belittling TE either. If TE advocates are not permitted to defend themselves I don't think it is right that they should be criticized here either.

This was the precise doubt running through my mind and I am glad that we have a good stand on it. I hope this is enforced! happy moderating

I think that it would probably be best to err on the side of caution and not let TEs post in here at all. There is enough vitriol on the mixed forums already. I would suggest that threads which generate debate should be copied into the mixed forums. If a thread generates debate, is it possible to produce two copies, one left here for creationist-only continued discussion and one put out into the mixed forum?

 

[mark kennedy]

This was the precise doubt running through my mind and I am glad that we have a good stand on it. I hope this is enforced! happy moderating

I don't care if a creationist wants to say why TE is wrong, that is going to happen. But this is not going to be a clearing house for rants against TE. As a matter of fact, I have seen very little of this on here and mostly creationists just shoot the breeze. They should be allowed to without some TE interjecting some snid remark, and will as long as I am moderating this forum.

I think that it would probably be best to err on the side of caution and not let TEs post in here at all. There is enough vitriol on the mixed forums already. I would suggest that threads which generate debate should be copied into the mixed forums. If a thread generates debate, is it possible to produce two copies, one left here for creationist-only continued discussion and one put out into the mixed forum?

I'm inclinded to agree since I have yet to see a TE post a fellowship post. Still, I see no reason to just ban them from the forum. I would delete the post of a TE advocate in a heartbeat but not just someone who has TE on their profile. I personally have never seen it but there may be a TE who is genuinely interested in fellowshiping with creationist in the spirit of Christian unity. I would welcome such a person in this forum as a guest of the members and staff. I don't want to make it impossible for TEs to come on here and learn about creation theology from creationists but the first sign of controversy I have to draw the line.

I understand what you are saying about moving certain threads into the mixed forum and I agree. If it's a creationism vs. theistic evolution debate then that is where it belongs.

Thank you kindly for you contribution to the thread, it is greatly appreciated.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[shernren]

I'm inclinded to agree since I have yet to see a TE post a fellowship post. ... I personally have never seen it but there may be a TE who is genuinely interested in fellowshiping with creationist in the spirit of Christian unity.

Not to be spiteful or anything, but I could say the same of the YECs here too. Sigh. We all need work on our characters, don't we?

 

[mark kennedy]

Not to be spiteful or anything, but I could say the same of the YECs here too. Sigh. We all need work on our characters, don't we?

The thing is that the age of the earth is not the main problem with evolution. Ok, giving more time can make it seem more plausable but the problem of first cause leads us back to God. God speaking the world into existiance does not leave a lot of room for how God did it but it does not leave a lot of room for the fact that God did act in time and space to make it happen in an instant.

How long did it take for Jesus to be raised from the dead? The same power was available both at the creation of the world and to you now.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[john crawford]

Hi Mark: I like your avatar. Looks like one of my Neanderthal ancestors to me.

I don't know if this will necessarily improve creation and origins theology, but I do know that the weakest link in the chains of theoretical evolution is the total absence of physical evidence in the human fossil record of any transitional forms or 'species' of neo-Darwinist ape-men in Africa, and that Professor Lubenow of "Bones of Contention" fame is right on the 'mark' when he writes about the inherent racism in all theories of Human evolution being taught in U.S. public schools today.

 

[mark kennedy]

Hi Mark: I like your avatar. Looks like one of my Neanderthal ancestors to me.

Thanks, that is UG, he is studying a butterfly that he calls UG, he has a very limited vocabulary.

I don't know if this will necessarily improve creation and origins theology, but I do know that the weakest link in the chains of theoretical evolution is the total absence of physical evidence in the human fossil record of any transitional forms or 'species' of neo-Darwinist ape-men in Africa, and that Professor Lubenow of "Bones of Contention" fame is right on the 'mark' when he writes about the inherent racism in all theories of Human evolution being taught in U.S. public schools today.

That has been a problem for evolution since Darwin's time. There were supposed to be 'innumerable' transitionals but they are extremely rare. What seems odd to me is that there are so many human ancestor fossils and so few chimpanzee fossils. In Darwin's 'Descent of Man' he claimed there were various sub-species of humans, which has been proven false in no uncertain terms. I kind of liked this part:

"The logical conclusion was simply to say that the KBS Tuff must be closer to 2 million years old, not 2.6, with the obvious implications for the hominid fossils recovered from below it-including, of course, 1470. The skull 1470, remember was held to be the oldest member of the genus Homo yet discovered, and was therefore the jewel in paleoanthropological crown of Koobi Fora-that is, if it was truly at least 2.6 million years old, If, as Harris and White's manuscript implied, 1470 was younger than half a million years old."

(Lubenow, Bones of Contention)

This skull turned out to be a little girl.

What the weakness of this so called theory is, is how in 2-2.6 million years the ape brain tripled in size, weight and density? The genetic basis for this kind of a change has remained a mystery and yet it is accepted as an actual fact, go figure. The time needed for this to happen is shrinking while the level of divergance between apes and humans at a DNA level is growing. We have went from being 98% identical to apes to 29% identical in this last year alone.

Thank you kindly for you contribution to the thread.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[john crawford]

Thanks, that is UG, he is studying a butterfly that he calls UG, he has a very limited vocabulary.

Careful, Mark; I wouldn't want to think that you think that our Neanderthal ancestors had a more "limited" vocabulary than an extinct race of original Australian Aborigines which modern neo-Darwinist race theorists would label as modern Homo sapiens sapiens.

What seems odd to me is that there are so many human ancestor fossils and so few chimpanzee fossils.

All the chimp fossils are considered to be neo-Darwinist contenders and candidates for human evolution, so they are listed as hominid ancestors in the Hominidae family of Man.

I kind of liked this part:

"The logical conclusion was simply to say that the KBS Tuff must be closer to 2 million years old, not 2.6, with the obvious implications for the hominid fossils recovered from below it-including, of course, 1470. The skull 1470, remember was held to be the oldest member of the genus Homo yet discovered, and was therefore the jewel in paleoanthropological crown of Koobi Fora-that is, if it was truly at least 2.6 million years old, If, as Harris and White's manuscript implied, 1470 was younger than half a million years old."

(Lubenow, Bones of Contention)

This skull turned out to be a little girl.​

​

Is that in the 1992 or 2004 edition of "Bones of Contention?"

We have went from being 98% identical to apes to 29% identical in this last year alone.

No kidding? That's remarkable considering the neo-Darwinist racial fact that we share zero genetic tolerance for our Neanderthal ancestors.

 

[david_x]

What the weakness of this so called theory is, is how in 2-2.6 million years the ape brain tripled in size, weight and density? The genetic basis for this kind of a change has remained a mystery and yet it is accepted as an actual fact, go figure. The time needed for this to happen is shrinking while the level of divergance between apes and humans at a DNA level is growing. We have went from being 98% identical to apes to 29% identical in this last year alone.

my teacher also said that we have 50% of the same DNA as a banana.

(could someone define TE and YEC. I'm sorta lost.)

 

[mark kennedy]

my teacher also said that we have 50% of the same DNA as a banana.

(could someone define TE and YEC. I'm sorta lost.)

All of DNA is composed of four basic basis; A, T, C, and G, with U rarely replacing T. Since there are 4 nucleotides paired together in combinations like C+G, A+T, T+A, G+C chances are the DNA of any two living systems will be at least 25% of the same DNA. The real thing is how these seqeunces are aligned and translated into proteins.

You see this a lot in the human origins discussions, they will tell you that you are 98% chimpanzee (ape) but that is misleading. The seqeunce identity is 95-96% simular which means 4-5% is completely different. Only about 29% of the chimpanzee DNA, as compared, to humans is identical. There are a large number of seqments (at least 18 major ones) where the DNA is inverted, novel genes inserted or deleted, rearranged ...etc. You can say that a Lexus and a Pinto are 98% simular since they are both built from steel if you don't take how the steel is formed into a functional automobile.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

Careful, Mark; I wouldn't want to think that you think that our Neanderthal ancestors had a more "limited" vocabulary than an extinct race of original Australian Aborigines which modern neo-Darwinist race theorists would label as modern Homo sapiens sapiens.

Whether or not they were human comes down to the cranial capacity and the use of precise tools. UG is an unusually shaped human with a developed cerebral cortex and fully functional frontal lobes. If the Neaderthals were indeed human they would have the same features as well.

All the chimp fossils are considered to be neo-Darwinist contenders and candidates for human evolution, so they are listed as hominid ancestors in the Hominidae family of Man.

Of course they are and most of the Hominid fossils are extinct apes. They would have been more bipedal then modern apes and signifigantly larger.

[qoute]

Is that in the 1992 or 2004 edition of "Bones of Contention?"[/quote]

I'm not sure, I found it in a Google book search.

No kidding? That's remarkable considering the neo-Darwinist racial fact that we share zero genetic tolerance for our Neanderthal ancestors.

I had heard that the Neanderthals were being DNA tested. The odds of getting an untainted sample seem slim to none from what I can see. By the way, humans only differ by one tenth of one percent no matter who they are. Anyone we are descended from would match that range perfectly.

 

[john crawford]

Whether or not they were human comes down to the cranial capacity and the use of precise tools. UG is an unusually shaped human with a developed cerebral cortex and fully functional frontal lobes. If the Neaderthals were indeed human they would have the same features as well.

Who does UG represent? I thought he was a Neanderthal.

I had heard that the Neanderthals were being DNA tested. The odds of getting an untainted sample seem slim to none from what I can see. By the way, humans only differ by one tenth of one percent no matter who they are. Anyone we are descended from would match that range perfectly.

Imagine if our biblical ancestors who lived individual life-spans over 900 years had Neanderthal skeletal morphologies upon their demise? Would we consider 10 generations of Noah's descendents till the time of Abraham, Isaac an Jacob, to be less than human just because of their Neanderthal appearance?

Genesis 6:3-4, makes reference to giants in the days of Noah and that man's life span would be shortened. Could not modern human morphology also be a result of the fact that God's spirit would not always strive with man?