Modern Theories of Creationism?

[Aman777]

Of course, this is assuming they have a level of intelligence similar to our own. For the majority of Earth's history, life consisted of little more than single-celled organisms.

All of the people of planet earth are now humans and have been for thousands of years. This is because Noah's descendants were scattered over the whole face of the Earth from Babel....including Australia and the Americas. Humans are the descendants of Adam who never stepped on this Earth.

 

[Standing_Ultraviolet]

There are arguments for the existence of God from inductive reasoning that have nothing to do with biology (the "five ways" of St. Thomas Aquinas are probably the best known, but there are some more unusual ones out there). Evolution through natural selection necessarily puts most of the development of modern life on Earth as the result of secondary causes, though, so you obviously can't make a coherent argument for the existence of God through arguments from biological design (since biology adapts to the environment, rather than being directly built like a machine).

You of course have special transformism, where man is created from a nearly human primate by God's direct action (hence why I said that evolution by natural selection only necessarily implies that most of biology can be explained through secondary causes), but in a case like that, the argument is theological rather than primarily scientific. There is no biological way of proving that's what happened, and so obviously you can't use it as an argument for God's existence (since the argument for it presupposes the existence of God).

I think that arguments from biological design are pretty weak, though, since they're so easily countered. If they were stronger, then evolution wouldn't be the dominant scientific paradigm. I'm not a fan of their use.

 

[Aman777]

Wolf:>>I think that arguments from biological design are pretty weak, though, since they're so easily countered. If they were stronger, then evolution wouldn't be the dominant scientific paradigm. I'm not a fan of their use.

Dear Wolf, God tells us that the beasts of the field are made after "His kind". This is Micro evolution or adaptation, within His kinds. Evolution as the Creator, or Macro Evolution is the problem. Genesis 6:4 gives us a good example of adaptation or Micro evolution since it shows that mankind inherited the human intelligence of Adam when the sons of God (prehistoric man) married and produced children with Adam's descendants. IOW, Scripture shows that evolution or changes within His kinds is true.

In Love,
Aman

 

[crawfish]

Why would evolution disprove God?

 

[Standing_Ultraviolet]

Why would evolution disprove God?

I think that the OP is looking for whether it would be possible to prove the existence of a divine being who created and guided life on Earth without disproving evolution. She [Notedstrangeperson] is a theistic evolutionist, so she doesn't believe that evolution disproves God.

That said, evolution does make finding proof of a creator active in the biological development of species more difficult. That doesn't make evolution less likely to be true, of course. The accuracy of a scientific theory doesn't depend on its convenience to anyone. It just means that you have to go a more circuitous route in proving the existence of God (you have to make arguments for the existence of God, then you have to make separate arguments that He is theistic, where if you could find obvious proof of design, you could wrap the two into one).

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

(Sorry about the late reply)

However, I think you mean, in your question "do you think it is possible with the current evidence available, to prove that a supernatural being created and guided life on earth, without disproving evolution."

For that, I think the question needs to be reframed - I think that the natural world, it's laws and the wonder of our universe all speak to a God, as per Heb 1:3. I think that once we accept the distinction between "supernatural" and "natural", we've lost. There is no "supernatural" vs. "natural", it's all God.

True, which is why I think the "We can't explain how this happened therefore God must have done it" argument needs to be dropped.

All the same ... I think all of us (creationist, theistic evolutionist or even atheist) believe that nature can work by itself. I've yet to meet a christian creationist who believes that everything that happens in nature is the result of God's direct intervention. Indeed most of the ones I've met have argued that God has essentially "abandoned" His creation.

Similarly the idea that God and nature are one and the same is closer to paganism - Christianity has always maintained that God and His creation are separate.

With that in mind, theoretically it could be possible to discover something outside the sphere of nature. Of course even if we did discover it, we probably wouldn't know how to explain it. And what can't be explained is often dismissed.

 

[dysert]

(Sorry about the late reply)

True, which is why I think the "We can't explain how this happened therefore God must have done it" argument needs to be dropped.

All the same ... I think all of us (creationist, theistic evolutionist or even atheist) believe that nature can work by itself. I've yet to meet a christian creationist who believes that everything that happens in nature is the result of God's direct intervention. Indeed most of the ones I've met have argued that God has essentially "abandoned" His creation.

Similarly the idea that God and nature are one and the same is closer to paganism - Christianity has always maintained that God and His creation are separate.

With that in mind, theoretically it could be possible to discover something outside the sphere of nature. Of course even if we did discover it, we probably wouldn't know how to explain it. And what can't be explained is often dismissed.

I don't think nature can work by itself. In fact, Heb. 1:3 says that Jesus is upholding/sustaining all things. Without His constant vigilance, things would probably all fall apart.

I think when we use the word "supernatural" we're meaning something that God causes to happen that's outside the accepted laws of nature. For example, the parting of the Red Sea, turning water into wine, etc.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

I don't think nature can work by itself. In fact, Heb. 1:3 says that Jesus is upholding/sustaining all things. Without His constant vigilance, things would probably all fall apart.

I think when we use the word "supernatural" we're meaning something that God causes to happen that's outside the accepted laws of nature. For example, the parting of the Red Sea, turning water into wine, etc.

In Christianity it's generally accepted that God created a set of natural laws which allow the universe and everything else in it to function by itself. Speaking generally, creationists believe that God abandoned the world after the Fall and only intervenes using supernatural methods, while theistic evolutionists believe that God can act through both the natural and supernatural.

If we believe that God intervening at every moment, we would have to conclude that all the things which go wrong in nature (such genetic abormalities) happened on purpose. If that were true, then why did Jesus spend much of his time healing people who were sick? Supernatural events and miracles occur on rare occassions when God decided to intervene by breaking the natural laws He created.

By contrast, Muslims do believe that God is intervening at every moment. When fire burns a piece of cotton, it's not because of any natural laws, but because God is making the cotton burn. To Muslims there is no distinction between the natural and supernatural and every moment is a "miracle".

 

[dysert]

In Christianity it's generally accepted that God created a set of natural laws which allow the universe and everything else in it to function by itself. Speaking generally, creationists believe that God abandoned the world after the Fall and only intervenes using supernatural methods, while theistic evolutionists believe that God can act through both the natural and supernatural.

If we believe that God intervening at every moment, we would have to conclude that all the things which go wrong in nature (such genetic abormalities) happened on purpose. If that were true, then why did Jesus spend much of his time healing people who were sick? Supernatural events and miracles occur on rare occassions when God decided to intervene by breaking the natural laws He created.

By contrast, Muslims do believe that God is intervening at every moment. When fire burns a piece of cotton, it's not because of any natural laws, but because God is making the cotton burn. To Muslims there is no distinction between the natural and supernatural and every moment is a "miracle".

What do you think Heb. 1:3 means?
He is the radiance of His glory, the exact expression of His nature, and He sustains all things by His powerful word. After making purification for sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high. (HCSB)

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

What do you think Heb. 1:3 means?
He is the radiance of His glory, the exact expression of His nature, and He sustains all things by His powerful word. After making purification for sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high. (HCSB)

Well in context it seems to be showing how much more power and authority Jesus has compared to all the prophets and angels. "He sustains all things by his powerful word" seems to mean that his teachings will not fade over time. I don't think it means that Jesus himself is directly causing the leaves to grow or the tides to come in.

 

[dysert]

Well in context it seems to be showing how much more power and authority Jesus has compared to all the prophets and angels. "He sustains all things by his powerful word" seems to mean that his teachings will not fade over time. I don't think it means that Jesus himself is directly causing the leaves to grow or the tides to come in.

I think I might have (unintentionally) misled you into thinking that I think God is more "active" than He really is. I'm not saying He's directly causing the leaves to grow or the tides to come in. Rather, I agree that the natural laws that He established allows for these things to occur "on their own". What I take from Heb. 1:3, though, is that His power is a constant factor in maintaining these natural laws and that if He ever took His hand off His creation, things would fall apart pretty quickly.

 

[hedrick]

If you're asking for scientific evidence, there are a few possibilities:

* We could find evidence that all species go back 6000 years and that's it. Of course that's not going to happen, but it's possible in principle.

* The problem with theistic evolution is that the most likely scenario is one that won't have scientific evidence. If you believe in providence, you think God is responsible for everything. But I don't see any way you could prove that. If evolution works like that, there's no reason to think we could find any scientific evidence. However if God guided evolution in a way different from how he guides everything else, you might detect it. Behe's was a possible approach, but that has failed. The only opportunity I can see now would be a detailed enough model of how evolution occurs that we could tell that the rate or some other property of actual evolution doesn't match the prediction of a model built from neutral science. We're *way* far from that kind of detailed model, but it's possible in principle.

I would think the highest probability is that God's providence over evolution isn't different from his providence over anything else, in which case I doubt we'll be able to see scientific evidence for it.

 

[SkyWriting]

I think I might have (unintentionally) misled you into thinking that I think God is more "active" than He really is. I'm not saying He's directly causing the leaves to grow or the tides to come in. Rather, I agree that the natural laws that He established allows for these things to occur "on their own". What I take from Heb. 1:3, though, is that His power is a constant factor in maintaining these natural laws and that if He ever took His hand off His creation, things would fall apart pretty quickly.

I think your on track on both counts. I believe He is holding each electron in its orbit.
(That is why we call it an "electron cloud". Because an electron doesn't actually exist until its needed)

I also think He is allowing humanity to create it's own reality and work
"on its own" as the path we've chosen in Sin.
"The world is passing away with its lusts, but he who does God's will remains forever"

 

[SkyWriting]

I don't think it's possible to prove creationism, regardless of evolution. Creation was a supernatural one-time event that occurred a long time ago. It can't be tested; it can't be repeated; it can only be inferred. And for those who already don't believe in the supernatural, it's a lost cause to even try proving it.

Exactly correct. Science only has the tools men have invented.
As God is 100% spirit, our analysis must be a spiritual one.
This world is not His world.

"Those people belong to this world, so they speak from the world's
viewpoint, and the world listens to them."

"...don't you know that friendship with the world is hatred toward God?
Anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world (i.e. science)
becomes an enemy of God."

 

[Aman777]

Originally Posted by dysert

I don't think it's possible to prove creationism, regardless of evolution. Creation was a supernatural one-time event that occurred a long time ago.

Dear Dysert, Not so, since God's creation of the third heaven continues. Today, He is creating mankind in His Image or in Christ. Notice Genesis 2:1 which tells us "Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them." The word finished in Hebrew means brought to perfection and notice also that ALL the host of heaven is in heaven.

Christians are among the host of heaven, which means that God's heaven will not be complete until the last person to be saved is saved and present in heaven. When God finishes a work, it is perfect, or God didn't do it. The world today is far from perfect and has NEVER been perfect to a God who can see the future. Genesis 2:1 is PROPECY.

Dysert:>>It can't be tested; it can't be repeated; it can only be inferred. And for those who already don't believe in the supernatural, it's a lost cause to even try proving it.

It's supernatural to be created in Christ or created eternally Spiritually. You forget that the Holy Spirit continues to work today, and the Church continues to work. Jesus tells us that He and His Father are working up to the present time. John 5 (Blue Letter Bible: KJV - King James Version)

The idea that God completed ALL of His work of the creation long ago is NOT Scriptural, since the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and the Church continues to work today to fill heaven with the host of heaven.

Hbr 4:9 There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God.
​

 

[TKICBS]

Please read my thread on Creation, revelation and the effect on prophecy for half of my comment.

If you know anything about prophecy you must realize that the word of God is true and therefore so is creation. If you know nothing or very little about bible prophecy, you should study it as light that shines in a dark place until the day dawns and the morning star arise in your heart. Then you will know the bible is true and therefor so is creation.
Concerning aliens, if they have to be the excuse for creation then who created them, and if they could evolve from slime then why not we, so where is the arguement?
Are there aliens? The bible says there are but calls them fallen angels, giants and Nephalim. They have a purpose in God's plan. But it is not to be accepted as buddies. It is as the destroyer and strong delusion. They do not know the Christ that the prophets prove to be Lord.
There are 3 main blood types and they are all from separate gene pools. ????
It is good that salvation is by faith so no matter who your ancestors were you can have eternal life.
Now comes faith.
The crux of the arguement against creation is faith.
Can God create anything by faith? Can he say light be and suddenly from nothing light is? Did Jesus really do miracles or did he just command the devils out so someone could be free and whole?
Or did he change water to wine? Other miracles required only freedom from something so healing could take place, but the wine!
If you have ever seen a miracle then you know that God can change water to wine and dust to man as easy as saying light be. You can believe it by faith or you can rely on worldly wisdom that can't understand it so denies it because they don't understand the science behind it.
But miracles require science just as all other things in the universe do. The science for miracles is in the bible.
First you must confess things that are not as thouigh they are. Then you must believe it in your heart, not in your mind as we often try. then you must not faiont or begin to doubt. Then you must wait on the Lord.
Faith is available to anyone. Even witches have faith but it is distorted and a fruit of the flesh that is used and manipulated by the devil to snare the unsuspecting.
Faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen. By faith we call those things that are not as though they are.
That is all cause and effect andf therefore science.
If my leg was completely severed and I had faith to receive a new one, God would give me a new leg. I don't know that I could believe for such a thing and I sure hope never to be tested, but, if I had the faith, God would draw all of the necessary moliculs out of the universe to my location to form that leg. This I know. IF I have faith.
Now, if you looked at my new leg under a microscope, would it look like a one day old leg or would it look like my other 57 year old leg; actually 58 year old leg this month?
I would bet it would look like my other leg.
My point is, it is possible that no matter how hard they try to examine the earth, it may look like it is billions of years old, but it is in fact only just over 6000 years old.
If you read the post I mentioned above you will find that I am sure it is lack of knowqledge on their part and the earth is in fact just over 6000 years old and could be proved with the right knowledge.
So I believe it is better to point to the prophecies to prove the bible than to point to creation, personally. The prophets prove beyond doubt that the bible is true.

 

[SkyWriting]

My point is, it is possible that no matter how hard they try to examine the earth, it may look like it is billions of years old, but it is in fact only just over 6000 years old.

We don't know if the 6000 number is correct. The description of the days of Creation do not describe the earth as only days old.
So by most all measures, it was not.

 

[TKICBS]

You just proved my point. LOL Hard to believe isn't it? Our natural mind cannot comprehend it. If you read my post called:
Creation, Revelation and the effect on prophecy
you might be able to get a glimse of it. Just copy that into the search tool in the forum.
I said the earth is just over 6000 years old to my understanding. The actual days of creation could be measured differently seeing as there was no such thing as a day until the sun was created. His word cannot lie so you could just accept it. Read the post I mentioned and then get back to me. It is to much to put here. What I do guaranty is that the Lord created the earth in 6 days. I believe this because the bible says it, however, I had to understand how He did it for myself.
There is a special blessing for those who just believe by faith. The problem with most men is we are thinkers and need understanding. The prophets prove the bible is true so creation becomes a challenge to understand it because it blows our minds to just acceot it by faith. Have you ever noticed that God said he created the earth in 6 days and rested on the seventh in the same breath that he gave the 10 commandments in Duteronomy. There must be a reason for that. We are told to obey the commandments. (Not the laws of Moses just so I am not misunderstood)
Anyway, please read that post and get back to me. It is 3 posts long. But is explains what I have learned and why there is no doubt in my mind that the 6 days were 6 days regardless of how long they were. I warn you, it is different. Enjoy.
Please repost when you have read it.

 

[SkyWriting]

You just proved my point. LOL Hard to believe isn't it? Our natural mind cannot comprehend it.

The reason we believe the earth to have a molten iron core is due to
the magnetic field and the mass it has (gravity). That rules out hollow.
A hollow shell would have a different orbit than the earth currently does.
You are free to double check any calculations.
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=452

 

[lesliedellow]

It isn't, and never has been possible to prove that God exists (even though he does).

That would be true even if you could disprove Evolution. Almost certainly you can't, because almost certainly it is true.