I am not a creationist.

[Spaceman 3]

I am not a creationist. I believe in an old earth as well as a new one. So what does that make me?

In the Genesis theory: Genesis 1:1 begins with a summary of the fact that God did it.

Genesis 1:2 then goes on to describe the conditions at the end of the old earth - Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

And Genesis 1:3 then go on to describe the beginning of the new earth – And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.

Genesis 1:2 speaks of an earth that was formless, empty, dark, and covered in water which existed before the six days of creation week began in Genesis 1:3.

It was from this preexisting ‘old’ earth that the “new” earth we now live on emerged out of its preexisting water – And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so...Gen 1:6-9.

Water was not created during the six days of creation week, nor was the rocks underneath it, they both already existed.

Sounds like a reasonable enough conclusion based on the scripture from Genesis.

My humble advice would be to forget the 'labels' attached to your belief. Just believe as you do, unless you feel the need to 'belong' to some group apart from humanity itself.

I know you like pigeons, but it seems that we're all too quick to pigenhole people, ignoring the complexity of human beings, just to make it all nice & tidy.

 

[AV1611VET]

Sounds like a reasonable enough conclusion based on the scripture from Genesis.

My humble advice would be to forget the 'labels' attached to your belief. Just believe as you do, unless you feel the need to 'belong' to some group apart from humanity itself.

I know you like pigeons, but it seems that we're all too quick to pigenhole people, ignoring the complexity of human beings, just to make it all nice & tidy.

No man is an island.

 

[morningstar2651]

In my opinion, we are all creationists in one form or another.

We either believe:

• creatio ex nihilo
• creatio ex materia
• creatio ex Deo

The ex [nihilo, materia, Deo] is not the issue in determining if we are a creationist or not --- the "creatio" part is.

We can say the earth "formed" by accretion (or whatever), but that is still a form of creatio ex materia.

Again --- in my opinion.

Who says anything has to be created?

 

[AV1611VET]

Who says anything has to be created?

That's like a fish asking, "Who says anything has to be wet?"

 

[morningstar2651]

That's like a fish asking, "Who says anything has to be wet?"

No it isn't.

What makes you think things couldn't just exist? Forever?

 

[sandwiches]

That's like a fish asking, "Who says anything has to be wet?"

It's more like a fish asking, "Who says anything has to be created?"

 

[lucaspa]

Who says anything has to be created?

Science. Observation. It's winter, so let's take the example of a cloudy day, then snowflakes begin to fall. Those snowflakes have to be "created", don't they? they didn't exist before, and now they do.

This same idea applies to species, solar systems, stars, galaxies, elements heavier than helium, then hydrogen and helium, and spacetime.

Now, for most of those things, you could also say "formed" or "transformed". Snowflakes form from water vapor, or are "transformed" from water vapor. But you can also say they are "created" -- by the principles of chemistry and physics.

What you are seem to be articulating is the Aristotlean idea that the universe has "always existed in some form or other". This was Aristotle's way of getting around the need for a creator deity. Again, science contradicts that. There is considerable data that our universe cannot have existed forever. Our universe began in the Big Bang, when energy/matter and spacetime came into existence. Some atheists have tried to get around this creation by postulating some form of eternally existing system of which our universe is just a part. But there isn't any data to back up those speculations.

So what it boils down to today is not whether things are created, but how they are created. Is there directcreation by a deity, or is all creation by material causes and there is no deity?

 

[lucaspa]

No it isn't.

What makes you think things couldn't just exist? Forever?

Observation. For instance, we know that our species -- H. sapiens -- has not existed forever. We know our universe had a beginning -- it has not existed "forever".

I'm afraid the Aristotlean notion you have has been disproved by science. Now, you can modify your statement and name something specific (as opposed to the all-inclusive "things") that has existed forever and from which everything else has sprung. Something other than God, of course. But there are innumerable observations that "things" in general haven't existed forever.

 

[Gracchus]

But there are innumerable observations that "things" in general haven't existed forever.

If you look at a river, you can see ripples and vortices. Those are "things" in the river. But of course these are not really separate things, they are just energy flows in the river. And when you realize that time is only perceived as change in spatial relationships you might start to comprehend that it really makes no sense to talk about "forever". If we observed something at coordinates (x,y,z,t) someone else might observe it at (x',y',z',t'). That is because our (0,0,0,0) is not the same as their (0',0',0',0').
Has it ever struck you as the least bit odd, that we look out, in all spatial directions at the past, at a universe that is smaller than the one we live in? The farther out we look, the farther into the past we see, and that past universe is smaller than the present one. That is like living in a basketball, and looking out in all directions and seeing the surface of a golf ball. If you turn it inside out, which is simple mathematically, the universe isn't expanding, everything in it is just getting smaller. So maybe the universe isn't expanding, it is simply falling into a black hole. What we perceive as matter may just be perceived as electromagnetic radiation from some other viewpoint that is "accelerating" relative to us.
Think of Euler's formula: e^(ix) = cos(x) = i X sin(x) and take cos(x) to be space and sin(x) to be time. As cos(x) approaches zero, sin(x) approaches +/- one. Space and time are not separate things, they are just two different ways of perceiving the same thing. (Yes, yes, I know, the math isn't rigorous! I can point you to some books, if you want proofs.)
My point is that the real world is very strange to brains that evolved to deal with only the grosser aspects.
Most of us would even have trouble understanding how (A X B) - (B X A) might not equal zero.

 

[Strathos]

Another necro thread I see. Surprisingly AV isn't responsible this time.

 

[AV1611VET]

Another necro thread I see. Surprisingly AV isn't responsible this time.

Lucaspa doesn't come here that often.

Is there a problem?

 

[morningstar2651]

Observation. For instance, we know that our species -- H. sapiens -- has not existed forever. We know our universe had a beginning -- it has not existed "forever".

I'm afraid the Aristotlean notion you have has been disproved by science. Now, you can modify your statement and name something specific (as opposed to the all-inclusive "things") that has existed forever and from which everything else has sprung. Something other than God, of course. But there are innumerable observations that "things" in general haven't existed forever.

We now know that things have ages, and that some things are older than the Bible says they are...like the sun, the moon, the Earth, and the stars.

 

[lucaspa]

I am not a creationist. I believe in an old earth as well as a new one. So what does that make me?

In the Genesis theory: Genesis 1:1 begins with a summary of the fact that God did it.

Genesis 1:2 then goes on to describe the conditions at the end of the old earth - Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

And Genesis 1:3 then go on to describe the beginning of the new earth – And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.

Genesis 1:2 speaks of an earth that was formless, empty, dark, and covered in water which existed before the six days of creation week began in Genesis 1:3.

It was from this preexisting ‘old’ earth that the “new” earth we now live on emerged out of its preexisting water – And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so...Gen 1:6-9.

Water was not created during the six days of creation week, nor was the rocks underneath it, they both already existed.

You are a "Gap Creationist". Old Earth Creation Science, The Gap Theory

The "creationist" term refers to people who claim that God created some things instantaneously in their present form. Since you refer to "the six days of creation week", you still have sun, moon, planets, stars, and all living creatures being created instantly and in their present form. So, yes you are a "creationist", just not a Young Earth Creationist. Instead, you are one form (among many) of Old Earth Creationist.
The Creation/Evolution Continuum | NCSE

 

[Strathos]

Lucaspa doesn't come here that often.

Is there a problem?

I just don't see the point of bumping threads from years ago.