How many creationist here think that atheism and evolution go together?

[juvenissun]

...Okay, then we can throw creation out as well, because creation is not only not scientific, but it demands that numerous scientific discoveries be thrown out the window in order to accommodate it. By your criteria, it's only "evolution" or "I don't know"!

If there were no Biblical creation, then you would be right. Too bad that
The Creation account described in the Bible is absolutely scientific and it has deep deep theological significance.

 

[Chris B]

It is an idea to explain the origin. It satisfy that requirement.
From there, we can talk about the rest of it. Of course, in this case, it won't go far.

As something unfalsifiable, I can't at the moment see what stops it.
Anything running counter to human intuition, moral values or common sense is met with "higher thoughts" and "mysterious ways", putting presumptuous humanity back in its place.
"Never mind, you're not supposed to be able to understand... just believe what you're told."
(Skipping lightly over the chasm where you'd think a perfect communicator ought to be able to do better than that.)

 

[joshua 1 9]

"Never mind, you're not supposed to be able to understand... just believe what you're told."

The Bible says that the Holy Spirit will be our teacher to guide us and lead us into the truth. So we do not need man to teach us. I was seeking God and God lead me to Jesus and Jesus (The Word) lead me to the Holy Spirit and then the Holy Spirit taught me about God the Father. I prayed and asked God to help me to understand the Bible.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

The Creation account described in the Bible is absolutely scientific and it has deep deep theological significance.

Is this the same creation account that has plants being created before the sun? We know that the sun is responsible for the ability of the plants to live. The sun isn't created until the fourth day. You can't have plants without photosynthesis and you can't have photosynthesis without the sun. The Genesis creation account contradicts what we know from science. But it's exactly what i'd expect someone that didn't understand the world they lived in to write.....and they were, not surprisingly, wrong.

 

[AV1611VET]

Is this the same creation account that has plants being created before the sun?

Yes.

We know that the sun is responsible for the ability of the plants to live.

Only because the sun is the best source today for plants, since sunlight has a perfect balance of wavelengths for photosynthesis.

But what if the original plants ... those created by a direct act of God in 4004 BC ... operated under a different wavelength of energy, until they acclimated to sunlight?

The sun isn't created until the fourth day.

Correct.

You can't have plants without photosynthesis and you can't have photosynthesis without the sun.

Are you sure about that?

If so, you might try Google for confirmation.

Although artificial lighting isn't as potent as sunlight, still it works.

The Genesis creation account contradicts what we know from science.

Either that, or it agrees with what you can't know.

And I submit that you can't have any way of knowing if photosynthesis operated under a different kind of energy: shekinah energy.

Energy direct from God himself.

But it's exactly what i'd expect someone that didn't understand the world they lived in to write.....

As I would expect from you as well.

 

[Hoghead1]

Yes, Abraxos, I do. However, God was already working with live material, not passive, inert, dead matter.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

3: we're working on it.
4: evolution doesn't kick in for a good while after the origin of things.
5: it's probably quantum.
6: some people consider the hand of God as a possible answer, but that is difficult to confirm or test.
(and why could it not have been the hoof of an Invisible Pink Unicorn?)

From what I know, GOD has 2 hands.
[And wouldn't ya know, I am left handed]

Ecc 10:2
A wise man's heart is at his right hand,
But a fool's heart at his left.

Matt 25:
and He shall set the SHEEP on His RIGHT HAND, but the GOATS on the LEFT.
Then shall the King say unto them on His RIGHT HAND, Come, blessed of My Father,.............................
Then shall He say also unto them on the LEFT HAND, Depart from Me, you cursed, into everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels:......................

http://www.kingdombiblestudies.org/2hands/2hands1.htm
THE TWO HANDS OF GOD

First, let us look at the meaning of these two words, right and left.
The word "right" as used with "hand" is generally the Hebrew word "yamiym" meaning STRONGER, MORE DEXTEROUS.
The word for "left" is "smowl" meaning DARK.
From the meaning of these two words it is very easy to understand that God's right hand is His strength and dexterity, or His wonderful ability to do all things. The implication is that the right hand of God is the GOOD HAND of God, doing GOOD things................................

............................................................................................

.

 

[Hoghead1]

Who says we are dealing with dead, unconscious things, just passive, inert, dead matter? I believe mind and matter are one. Everything in the universe is alive. Even atoms have tiny minds.

 

[Hoghead1]

That isn't accurate, JUvinessun. There re two contradictory accounts in genesis and neither one fits at all with modern science.

 

[Laury]

Wait, are we talking about the biblical creation that doesn't match-up with the fossil record and our observations?
How the hell is that scientific again?

 

[AV1611VET]

Wait, are we talking about the biblical creation that doesn't match-up with the fossil record and our observations?

What does the fossil record have to do with Biblical creation?

Are you saying God created fossils during the creation week?

 

[The Cadet]

If there were no Biblical creation, then you would be right. Too bad that
The Creation account described in the Bible is absolutely scientific and it has deep deep theological significance.

No, juv, it isn't. At this point I think we've hit a dead end. In order to account for creation, we need to allow for miracles, for the breaking of natural law. And if we can allow that in your explanation, then there is absolutely no reason not to allow for it in any explanation. Which means that last thursdayism works.

 

[Laury]

What does the fossil record have to do with Biblical creation?

If it is a scientific theory like you people claim, it should match up with our observations and evidence. That is literally how science works. If you deny it, make excuses, ignore it, or say that god wanted to trick us, it is not scientific.

Observations and evidence always come first, and if it fits an hypothesis, it becomes a scientific theory. If there are anomalies, more hypothesis are presented and the theory is changed according to the new findings and outcomes.

Creationism does not do this, because it is infallible. Which is already by definition unscientific, because science itself - yes, even evolution - is in it's core never infallible.

 

[AV1611VET]

If it is a scientific theory like you people claim,

Creationism is about as scientific as Humpty Dumpty is.

Expecting creationism to be scientific is like expecting Bill Gates' birth certificate to be a patent on computers.

 

[The Cadet]

Creationism is about as scientific as Humpty Dumpty is.

Expecting creationism to be scientific is like expecting Bill Gates' birth certificate to be a patent on computers.

Y'wanna take it up with @juvenissun ?

 

[Laury]

Creationism is about as scientific as Humpty Dumpty is

Well, good that we agree on that then. But I mostly was referring to that statement of that guy:

(...)The Creation account described in the Bible is absolutely scientific (...)

I thought you'd agree with that statement since you answered.

 

[Chris B]

The Bible says that the Holy Spirit will be our teacher to guide us and lead us into the truth. So we do not need man to teach us. I was seeking God and God lead me to Jesus and Jesus (The Word) lead me to the Holy Spirit and then the Holy Spirit taught me about God the Father. I prayed and asked God to help me to understand the Bible.

I find nothing inconsistent in that, and what I've said, looking around at Christianity today.
Many convinced of their understanding. But no remarkable unity of understanding.

 

[AV1611VET]

Y'wanna take it up with @juvenissun ?

Negs.

Juve is a cool dude!

 

[Hoghead1]

The problem I have with that approach , ChrisB, is that it is too much like the so-called cowboy theology. You don't need the church fathers, God forbid, you would do any studying in higher education, you can just skip church doctrine, just relax and be as anti-intellectual as possible. The in thing is to go Bible dipping. You have a problem, just throw open the Bible to any page, and the Spirit will magically point you to the answer. That's what's responsible for the extreme amount of ignorance floating around in many churches and here as well.

 

[juvenissun]

As something unfalsifiable, I can't at the moment see what stops it.

You do not have to stop the fantasy of unicorn creation. But you can not go far with it. It is a logical practicality.