Incredible - a single cell

[miamited]

I do not think its "these believe God and the others not".

I think its "these believe the YEC and the others not".

Hi myst,

Well, if the account found in the Scriptures turns out to be truthful in its understanding that the 6 days of the creation event were actually 6 days pretty much as we know a day today. If the account of the generations from Adam to Abraham turn out to be accurate in their accounting of the years as they passed upon the earth as each generation was born, then believing God and believing the YEC model would be the same thing.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[trophy33]

Hi myst,

Well, if the account found in the Scriptures turns out to be truthful in its understanding that the 6 days of the creation event were actually 6 days pretty much as we know a day today. If the account of the generations from Adam to Abraham turn out to be accurate in their accounting of the years as they passed upon the earth as each generation was born, then believing God and believing the YEC model would be the same thing.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

And this is a very big "if".

Not accepting one specific interpretation of Genesis does not mean that "these other scientists do not believe God".

Its not like God appeared in front of them, said something and they said in response "nah, we do not believe that". They are just doing their job and do not compare it to what the YEC interpretation says.

 

[miamited]

Hi myst,

Thanks for your response. You responded:

Not accepting one specific interpretation of Genesis does not mean that "these other scientists do not believe God".

So, let me see, God gave us an account of how and when He created this realm in which we live. A scientist says, "No, that can't possibly be the truth because we know..." That scientist believes God?

It is, actually, exactly like your example says. The only difference being that you find some fault in the premise because God didn't actually appear before them and say with His voice...

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[trophy33]

Hi myst,

Thanks for your response. You responded:


So, let me see, God gave us an account of how and when He created this realm in which we live. A scientist says, "No, that can't possibly be the truth because we know..." That scientist believes God?

It is, actually, exactly like your example says. The only difference being that you find some fault in the premise because God didn't actually appear before them and say with His voice...

God bless,
In Christ, ted

It seems to me that you believe that the account in Genesis was automatically dictated by God as a technical description of how He created everything.

I think it was actually written by a human author who was "only" inspired and that this author did not want to give a technical/scientific description.

Therefore we should not impose the YEC literal-technical reading of Genesis on scientists. Its not that they do not believe God, they just do not believe that Genesis is a technical description.

 

[miamited]

Hi myst,

I think it was actually written by a human author who was "only" inspired and that this author did not want to give a technical/scientific description.

Perhaps you can explain to me what you mean by 'technical/scientific description'. God merely said that He created this realm in 6 days. Then beginning with Adam He provided an account of the years between a father and a son until He got to Abraham. I'm not sure why one would think that a 'techincal/scientific description' would make any difference in that.

No, God did not say that He caused molecules to coalesce into a living being and show how all that was accomplished on a blackboard at your high school. He didn't call together all of the great scientific minds of the time, well, then again, since His was the only great scientific mind at the time, maybe He did, to explain to you through algebraic and nucleic formulary how He got this to work here and that to work there.

I think you're discounting the fact that when a Creature, a Being, if you will, can cause something to exist out of nothing that 2 minutes ago didn't exist and neither did any of the smaller molecular parts with which it was made, exist, that there is any 'technical/scientific description' to be had. According to the Scriptures, God merely spoke or commanded in some way for the earth to exist. At the utterance or thinking of that command, the earth came into existence. There were no molecules and atoms hanging around before that moment from which the earth was made. So, how 'technical/scientific' can you be beyond just saying that something didn't exist in one moment and then suddenly existed in the next and there was nothing from which you could show that the something being created was made out of some previously existing something?

You see, what you're wanting is some explanation of how all the molecular and atomic structure was pulled together to make what exists. Unfortunately, there wasn't any explanation to provide, not even by the most brilliant scientist who may have lived at the moment of creation, that could have given any 'technical/scientific description' for what he had just witnessed. He would merely have been 'floating' in the black emptiness of an area that was void of absolutely any matter or molecules or atoms and then suddenly 'POOF' there before his eyes he would have seen the earth.

I would challenge you to even make up some 'technical/scientific description' that such a thing could happen without drawing on some fact that, well, this happened because there was something else that existed before it happened that caused it to happen.

Now, your understanding of who the author of the Scriptures is, and the knowledge and wisdom of that author, is just something that we'll have to disagree on.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[trophy33]

Perhaps you can explain to me what you mean by 'technical/scientific description'. God merely said that He created this realm in 6 days....

This. "God said He created this realm in 6 days".

What problems do I see with this:
a) its just written in the Bible, its not said by God, personally
b) the word does not mean only a 24-hours day
c) you are reading it as literal history - technical, scientific description, instead of a symbolic, spiritual history (for example: dust, breath of life, sides, trees can be symbols).

Genesis is a polemic literature, its polemic with the creation myths of the Mesopotamia. Its not written in the 21st century scientific way. Therefore it brings errors and mistakes to read it this way.

 

[nolidad]

This. "God said He created this realm in 6 days".

What problems do I see with this:
a) its just written in the Bible, its not said by God, personally
b) the word does not mean only a 24-hours day
c) you are reading it as literal history - technical, scientific description, instead of a symbolic, spiritual history (for example: dust, breath of life, sides, trees can be symbols).

Genesis is a polemic literature, its polemic with the creation myths of the Mesopotamia. Its not written in the 21st century scientific way. Therefore it brings errors and mistakes to read it this way.

Sorry for interjecting in your conversation with miamited.

1.How do you know it was not spoken by God to Adam? After all they did walk together in the sunset daily for X time. Why would they not have had this conversation.
2. As for the six days of creation? It can only be read that way. ask a Hebrew reading Jew what "an evening and a morning, a first day" means. If the evening and morning and a first, second,etc. were not added, you would have a medium to strong case. Though that would pose some serious scientific problems in itself if the days are ages.
3. there is nothing in the writing to warrant calling it symbolic. Everywhere else the Bible makes it clear with the language used that something is symbolic. There is justn othing to say this is not history and rudimentary language science.

Genesis is a polemic literature, its polemic with the creation myths of the Mesopotamia. Its not written in the 21st century scientific way. Therefore it brings errors and mistakes to read it this way.

Why is it a counter argument from those mesopotamiam accounts that appeared after the Genesis account was written and handed down from generation to generation? What evidence do you present to prove it is simply a counter argument?

Why it it wrong to read it scientifically? Just because they did not speak the same technicalese as modern scientists do? Does that mean people who are not scientists and speak of evolution and believe in it are speaking error as well because they do not know all the minutae of todays scientific language??? That smacks of the same arrogance the Roman Church had for a millenium when it forbade anyone from commenting on Scripture.

 

[-57]

This. "God said He created this realm in 6 days".

What problems do I see with this:
a) its just written in the Bible, its not said by God, personally
b) the word does not mean only a 24-hours day
c) you are reading it as literal history - technical, scientific description, instead of a symbolic, spiritual history (for example: dust, breath of life, sides, trees can be symbols).

Genesis is a polemic literature, its polemic with the creation myths of the Mesopotamia. Its not written in the 21st century scientific way. Therefore it brings errors and mistakes to read it this way.

Why didn't you present the portions scripture that actually present the Genesis account as literal and historical?

 

[miamited]

This. "God said He created this realm in 6 days".

What problems do I see with this:
a) its just written in the Bible, its not said by God, personally
b) the word does not mean only a 24-hours day
c) you are reading it as literal history - technical, scientific description, instead of a symbolic, spiritual history (for example: dust, breath of life, sides, trees can be symbols).

Genesis is a polemic literature, its polemic with the creation myths of the Mesopotamia. Its not written in the 21st century scientific way. Therefore it brings errors and mistakes to read it this way.

Hi myst,

I'll allow you to have whatever problems you have with that understanding. However, it is the way the Scriptures are written and you and I obviously have a wide difference of understanding as to the 'who' authored the Scriptures and the base of knowledge and wisdom that 'who' had at their disposal.

I would absolutely agree that Genesis is not written in any 21st Century scientific way, but again, I ask for any evidence you might have that would make that an issue of any importance to the account and understanding of the writing.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[trophy33]

I would absolutely agree that Genesis is not written in any 21st Century scientific way, but again, I ask for any evidence you might have that would make that an issue of any importance to the account and understanding of the writing.

Well, I am not sure what you mean by evidence that it might be an issue in understanding.

As we can see, there are obvious issues in understanding Genesis between Christians, so...?

 

[-57]

Well, I am not sure what you mean by evidence that it might be an issue in understanding.

As we can see, there are obvious issues in understanding Genesis between Christians, so...?

So???

The Theo-Evos does away with mankind obtaining their sin nature via the act of disobedience.
The Theo-Evo sect must come up with a different reason as to why mankind sins. When asked what that reason is they typically punt.

 

[Brightmoon]

Fundamental creationists also refuse to admit they are such people, obviously. We already have a section with threads about creationism vs. evolution in the Physical and Life Sciences forum. It is sad that people feel like they have to force their biased opinions on people like us.

As ofr myself, I am open to believing either humans come from chimpanzees (like dogs coming from gray wolves) or they are just very similar primates with the same ancestor, like mammoths and elephants. We may not find out in our lifetimes, but there is a definite answer because only one can be true
.

chimps and humans have a common ancestor. Everything that scientists can study: genetics, anatomy,developmental biology, fossils,behavior etc ; says that we have that recent ancestry with chimps

So???

The Theo-Evos does away with mankind obtaining their sin nature via the act of disobedience.
The Theo-Evo sect must come up with a different reason as to why mankind sins. When asked what that reason is they typically punt.

it’s probably because we have verifiable evidence of the common ancestry with the other animals and we only have religious opinions for original sin . Scientists don’t confirm or disconfirm religious opinions . That’s not our job. We can and do try to confirm facts about nature.

 

[nolidad]

chimps and humans have a common ancestor. Everything that scientists can study: genetics, anatomy,developmental biology, fossils,behavior etc ; says that we have that recent ancestry with chimps
it’s probably because we have verifiable evidence of the common ancestry with the other animals and we only have religious opinions for original sin . Scientists don’t confirm or disconfirm religious opinions . That’s not our job. We can and do try to confirm facts about nature.

No we do not have a common ancestor! Lucy is rejected by many in the evolutionist circle as being an intermediary that ape and man split from.

At best man and ape share an 80% genetic similarity. That is 600,000,000 base pair difference.

Teh relationship is all inferred by similarity in design, not by verifiable evidence!

Behaviors are different. anatomy is different. Hemoglobin is different tissue structure is different, Hair quality is different! Developmental biology? Are we going back to the recapitulation theory???

I showed genetics don't confirm common descent. The more we learn about genetics- the more different we see man and chimp!

Should we list the "verified" facts science believed and taught that are now no longer facts?

 

[Brightmoon]

No we do not have a common ancestor! Lucy is rejected by many in the evolutionist circle as being an intermediary that ape and man split from.

At best man and ape share an 80% genetic similarity. That is 600,000,000 base pair difference.

Teh relationship is all inferred by similarity in design, not by verifiable evidence!

Behaviors are different. anatomy is different. Hemoglobin is different tissue structure is different, Hair quality is different! Developmental biology? Are we going back to the recapitulation theory???

I showed genetics don't confirm common descent. The more we learn about genetics- the more different we see man and chimp!

Should we list the "verified" facts science believed and taught that are now no longer facts?

If you’re going to list verifiable facts then these that you listed , are not them.1 Lucy or rather her species Australopithecus afarensis is most likely the ancestor of genus Homo . That the Australopithecines are the ancestors of genus Homo is a fact.
2 There is a 97-99% genetic similarity between the other great apes and humans . I do know where yo got that 80% from and that guy deliberately used an incorrect procedure to get that number.
3 Not a single person has come up with a way to categorize design so that last statement is meaningless .
4 chimps do use human blood when they need operations . They do have to match ABO type and Rh factors .
5 Mischaracterizing modern developmental biology as a long discredited 19th century theory is a mistake on your part not the scientific community’s . It’s called beating a dead horse
You’ve actually showed that you read a lot of creationist disinformation not that you’ve disproved common descent.

 

[Tone]

All science does is divvy up this unnatural post fall existence. Why do people think they are gathering truth from illusion?

 

[Brightmoon]

All science does is divvy up this unnatural post fall existence. Why do people think they are gathering truth from illusion?

you would have to come up with verifiable evidence that this “fall “ actually happened and when . Otherwise the scientific community is going to call it an unverified hypothesis ( if they’re being polite) and ignore it

 

[Tone]

you would have to come up with verifiable information that this “fall “ actually happened and when . Otherwise the scientific community is going to call it an unverified hypothesis ( if they’re being polite) and ignore it

Science itself is the verifiable information.

 

[Tone]

That there is this dividing (science) is indicative of the fall...

 

[Brightmoon]

Science itself is the verifiable information.

could have fooled me as I’ve never run across that information . I have run across a lot of verifiable information about common descent and evolution including directly observing some of those processes

 

[Brightmoon]

That there is this dividing (science) is indicative of the fall...

I think it is more about ancient religious beliefs hiding the truth about natural phenomena from scientifically illiterate laymen. After all scientists do have the evidence to support their claims