My theory on creation.

[mark kennedy]

The verses indicate a lack of knowledge of the Earth. Yes the ancient Greeks knew that the Earth was round, but we are not discussing them. And the problem is one can't claim to use reason and treat those verses that I sited as being mere poetry, which I actually agree with, and at the same time accept the myths of Genesis as being literally true. The same thought processes that tell us that those verses are not to be taken literally will result in one not taking Genesis literally.

It is rather amazing that literalists cannot understand this tactic. Or perhaps they do and they just can't stand the fact that they are wrong and inconsistent.

I don't know what your problem is with that strawman but beat him, kick him and set him on fire it changes nothing. You will find nothing about Hebrew cosmology or astronomy in the Hebrew Scriptures. What is more the Greeks loved poetry, hyperbole and drama, they were and are an emotional people. They were merchants because the had limited resources so they spent a lot of time in Egypt which was a thriving cultural center, rich in ancient science. Thales went down there and learned some things about right triangle solutions they used to set property lines. In Alexandria they took papyrus reeds and weaved them together and baked them into scrolls. The Greeks, unlike so many of the ancients, had groups that studied and recorded what they learned in scrolls. Thales took his new found knowledge, taught it to other like Pythagoras who created the famous Pythagorean equation. One of his disciples would record all of the Geometric solutions and the Euclid Elements was produced resulting in a seven scroll encyclical. That collection is the second best selling work of nonfiction work of all time, second only to the King James Bible.

You need to learn your history because the historical narratives of the ancient history is their gift to humanity.

 

[Speedwell]

The theory of natural selection is based on naturalistic assumptions. "The doctrine that species, including man, are descended from other species...being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition’" (Preface, On the Origin of Species). That is mutually exclusive with creation, design or miraculous interposition of any kind.

(emphasis added)
In your opinion. Close to two billion Christians would disagree with you about it. I certainly do, and consider your statement so obviously false that it causes me to question your intellectual integrity.

 

[mark kennedy]

(emphasis added)
In your opinion. Close to two billion Christians would disagree with you about it. I certainly do, and consider your statement so obviously false that it causes me to question your intellectual integrity.

Question anything you like, your statistics are bogus. Creation was is and always will be essential Christian theism.

 

[bhsmte]

Question anything you like, your statistics are bogus. Creation was is and always will be essential Christian theism.

When you say creation, what exactly are you referring to? Literal biblical creation, or some other definition?

 

[Speedwell]

Question anything you like, your statistics are bogus. Creation was is and always will be essential Christian theism.

Just what I expected--a claim that Roman, Orthodox and Oriental Christians aren't "really" Christians. I'll give you the wishy-washy mainstream American Protestant denominations, but accusing the rest of abandoning essential Christian theism is vicious.

 

[mark kennedy]

Just what I expected--a claim that Roman, Orthodox and Oriental Christians aren't "really" Christians.

I never said that, I said creation is essential Christian theism and they all affirm this:

I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.​

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made. (Nicene Creed)
​

There is no question that creation is essential Christian theism.

 

[mark kennedy]

When you say creation, what exactly are you referring to? Literal biblical creation, or some other definition?

The biblical and the Christian confession of creation is identical. Do Christians take God being Creator literally? How am I supposed to answer that? Is there another way to take it? God being Savior, Lord and Creator has never been hyperbole.

 

[bhsmte]

The biblical and the Christian confession of creation is identical.

Ok, let me ask it this way.

If someone claiming to be a Christian, agrees with the TOE and believes God used the TOE, would this person be going against Christian theism in your opinion?

 

[Speedwell]

Just what I expected--a claim that Roman, Orthodox and Oriental Christians aren't "really" Christians.

I never said that, I said creation is essential Christian theism and they all affirm this:

I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.​

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made. (Nicene Creed)
​

There is no question that creation is essential Christian theism.

If that's what you meant by "creationism" than you are right. But you went on to say,

"The theory of natural selection is based on naturalistic assumptions. "The doctrine that species, including man, are descended from other species...being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition’" (Preface, On the Origin of Species). That is mutually exclusive with creation, design or miraculous interposition of any kind." (emphasis added )

That "of any kind" is what makes your statement a slap in the face to the majority of the world's Christians.

 

[mark kennedy]

If that's what you meant by "creationism" than you are right. But you went on to say,

"The theory of natural selection is based on naturalistic assumptions. "The doctrine that species, including man, are descended from other species...being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition’" (Preface, On the Origin of Species). That is mutually exclusive with creation, design or miraculous interposition of any kind." (emphasis added )

That "of any kind" is what makes your statement a slap in the face to the majority of the world's Christians.

No it's not, the Darwinian naturalistic assumptions from arguments of science, falsely so called, are the slap in the face. Darwinian evolution is mutually exclusive with creation not because of anything I said, but because it requires miraculous interposition.

 

[Speedwell]

No it's not, the Darwinian naturalistic assumptions from arguments of science, falsely so called, are the slap in the face. Darwinian evolution is mutually exclusive with creation not because of anything I said, but because it requires miraculous interposition.

I think you have been led astray by the Antichrist of Geneva. Darwin's statement of naturalism is entirely consistent with traditional Christian metaphysics. Have you never wondered why it is only Protestants who have a serious problem with evolution?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't know what your problem is with that strawman but beat him, kick him and set him on fire it changes nothing. You will find nothing about Hebrew cosmology or astronomy in the Hebrew Scriptures. What is more the Greeks loved poetry, hyperbole and drama, they were and are an emotional people. They were merchants because the had limited resources so they spent a lot of time in Egypt which was a thriving cultural center, rich in ancient science. Thales went down there and learned some things about right triangle solutions they used to set property lines. In Alexandria they took papyrus reeds and weaved them together and baked them into scrolls. The Greeks, unlike so many of the ancients, had groups that studied and recorded what they learned in scrolls. Thales took his new found knowledge, taught it to other like Pythagoras who created the famous Pythagorean equation. One of his disciples would record all of the Geometric solutions and the Euclid Elements was produced resulting in a seven scroll encyclical. That collection is the second best selling work of nonfiction work of all time, second only to the King James Bible.

You need to learn your history because the historical narratives of the ancient history is their gift to humanity.

What strawman are you talking about? If anyone is guilty of that sin it is you. Your desperation to bring the Greeks into the argument proves that.

Once again, the Greeks are not the peoples being discussed here.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Question anything you like, your statistics are bogus. Creation was is and always will be essential Christian theism.

If you are talking about the creation myths of Christianity then you are merely stating that Christianity is bogus. Creationists are Christianity's own worst enemy.

 

[mark kennedy]

What strawman are you talking about? If anyone is guilty of that sin it is you. Your desperation to bring the Greeks into the argument proves that.

Once again, the Greeks are not the peoples being discussed here.

I'm not desperate at all, you don't know your history. You don't seem to have the slightest interest in the epistemology of the inductive approach to exploring natural phenomenon. What is more you haven't bothered to learn anything of the sacred literature of the ancient Hebrews. You want to equivocate a flat earth with the doctrine of creation and I'm not so easily distracted.

You have resorted to an ad hominem attack far to early to have anything empirical or substantive to offer. It's the death spiral of Darwinism and I refuse to accept that your naturalistic assumptions are the same thing as science. Two fallacies drive your arguments and I'm not going to be distracted by either.

If you are talking about the creation myths of Christianity then you are merely stating that Christianity is bogus. Creationists are Christianity's own worst enemy.

That's simply not true, while natural theology isn't required for essential Christian theism it is definitely based on it. The doctrine of creation is not up for grabs and it's not subject to interpretation. It's an essential element of the Christian faith and the natural theology of Creationists and Intelligent Design are intellectual side bars, nothing more.

So do you want to talk about Creationism, the doctrine of creation it is based on, or continue to beat that strawman senseless?

Those myths you are talking about are historical narratives, if you don't believe them that's on you, but stop pretending they are myths because it's not true.

 

[Speedwell]

I'm not desperate at all, you don't know your history. You don't seem to have the slightest interest in the epistemology of the inductive approach to exploring natural phenomenon. What is more you haven't bothered to learn anything of the sacred literature of the ancient Hebrews. You want to equivocate a flat earth with the doctrine of creation and I'm not so easily distracted.

You have resorted to an ad hominem attack far to early to have anything empirical or substantive to offer. It's the death spiral of Darwinism and I refuse to accept that your naturalistic assumptions are the same thing as science. Two fallacies drive your arguments and I'm not going to be distracted by either.



That's simply not true, while natural theology isn't required for essential Christian theism it is definitely based on it. The doctrine of creation is not up for grabs and it's not subject to interpretation. It's an essential element of the Christian faith and the natural theology of Creationists and Intelligent Design are intellectual side bars, nothing more.

I think you are desperate--desperate to make a cosmic theist vs. atheist struggle out of your own sectarian theological difficulties.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm not desperate at all, you don't know your history. You don't seem to have the slightest interest in the epistemology of the inductive approach to exploring natural phenomenon. What is more you haven't bothered to learn anything of the sacred literature of the ancient Hebrews. You want to equivocate a flat earth with the doctrine of creation and I'm not so easily distracted.

If you were not desperate you would not have to repeat false claims about me. But yes, there is no real difference between a Flat Earth belief and a belief in creationism. You have completely failed to demonstrate any error in my part in this.

You have resorted to an ad hominem attack far to early to have anything empirical or substantive to offer. It's the death spiral of Darwinism and I refuse to accept that your naturalistic assumptions are the same thing as science. Two fallacies drive your arguments and I'm not going to be distracted by either.

Really? Where. Where is that supposed attack? And creationists have been claiming that evolution is failing ever since the theory was first formalized. Instead the evidence is now so massive for it that it is recognized as a scientific fact. The debate has not been on if life evolved, but rather how. If "Darwinism" dies it will only do so because a more thorough explanation of the fact of evolution arises.

That's simply not true, while natural theology isn't required for essential Christian theism it is definitely based on it. The doctrine of creation is not up for grabs and it's not subject to interpretation. It's an essential element of the Christian faith and the natural theology of Creationists and Intelligent Design are intellectual side bars, nothing more.

The failure is more likely to be due to your poor definition of "creation". Now there are scientists that are Christians and there goal is to find out "How God did it". They do not rely on the myths of Genesis at all. Your Christian beliefs might rely on myths, but that is not true for all Christians.

So do you want to talk about Creationism, the doctrine of creation it is based on or continue to beat that strawman senseless?

You have yet to demonstrate a strawman. Your failure by relying on the Greeks only supports my claim. Try again. I do get tired of false claims of creationists at times so excuse me if I get a bit rude.

Those myths you are talking about are historical narratives, if you don't believe them that's on you, but stop pretending they are myths because it's not true.

No, they are not. They are simply myths that were largely acquired by the interactions of ancient Hebrews with other cultures. The Noah's Ark myth arose from the Babylonian myths found in the Epic of Gilgamesh and that was based upon even older myths.[/QUOTE]

 

[mark kennedy]

I think you are desperate--desperate to make a cosmic theist vs. atheist struggle out of your own sectarian theological difficulties.

That's called an ad hominem fallacy, you argue little else. You've abandoned the subject matter and made it all about personal remarks. That's when I know I got you, when you have nothing else. Welcome to my ignore list.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's called an ad hominem fallacy, you argue little else. You've abandoned the subject matter and made it all about personal remarks. That's when I know I got you, when you have nothing else. Welcome to my ignore list.

No, that was an observation and a drawn conclusion. It appears that you do not understand what an ad hominem is.

 

[mark kennedy]

If you were not desperate you would not have to repeat false claims about me. But yes, there is no real difference between a Flat Earth belief and a belief in creationism. You have completely failed to demonstrate any error in my part in this.

Desperate? I'm little more the bored watching you beat up on an argument I never made.

Really? Where. Where is that supposed attack? And creationists have been claiming that evolution is failing ever since the theory was first formalized. Instead the evidence is now so massive for it that it is recognized as a scientific fact. The debate has not been on if life evolved, but rather how. If "Darwinism" dies it will only do so because a more thorough explanation of the fact of evolution arises.

First of all evolution is the change of alleles (traits) in populations over time, not the a priori assumption of universal common ancestry by exclusively naturalistic means. That particular fallacy is called equivocation.

The failure is more likely to be due to your poor definition of "creation". Now there are scientists that are Christians and there goal is to find out "How God did it". They do not rely on the myths of Genesis at all. Your Christian beliefs might rely on myths, but that is not true for all Christians.

The Genesis account of creation defines 'creation' perfectly well.

Created

The phrase, 'heaven and the earth', is a Hebrew expression meaning the universe. All we really get from this passage is that the cosmos and earth were created, 'in the beginning'. The perspective of creation week is from the surface of the earth, starting with the Spirit of God hovering over the deep (Gen. 1:2). In the chapter there are three words used for God's work in creation. The first is 'created' ('bara' H1254) a very precise term used only of God.

Create ‘bara’ (H1254) - 'This verb has profound theological significance, since it has only God as it’s subject. Only God can create in the sense implied by bara. The verb expresses the idea of creation out of nothing...(Vines Expository Dictionary)​

Made
It is used once to describe the creation of the universe (Gen 1:1), then again to describe the creation of life (Gen 1:21). Finally, in the closing verses, it is used three times for the creation of Adam and Eve (Gen. 1:27). The word translated, 'made' (asah 6213) , has a much broader range of meaning and is used to speak of the creation of the 'firmament' (Gen 1:7), the sun, moon and stars (Gen 1:16), procreation where offspring are made 'after his/their kind' (Gen 1:25) and as a general reference to creation in it's vast array (Gen 1:31).

Made ‘asah’(H6213) "A primitive root; to do or make, in the broadest sense and widest application" (Gen 1:7, Gen 1:16, Gen 1:25, Gen 1:31, Isa. 41:20, 43:7, 45:7, 12, Amos 4:13). (Strong’s Dictionary). "The verb, which occurs over 2600 times in the Old Testament, is used as a synonym for “create” only about 60 times…only when asah is parallel to bara…can we be sure that it implies creation." (Vine 52).​

Set
Then there is a third term when God 'set' (nathan H2414), the lights of the sun, moon and stars so that their light is regularly visible from the surface of the earth. In this way the narrative shifts from the very precise word for 'created' to the more general 'made', and then the much broader use of 'set'.

Set (nathan H5414) A primitive root; to give, used with greatest latitude of application (Gen 1:17, Gen 9:13, Gen 18:8, Gen 30:40, Gen 41:41). Elsewhere translated ‘put’, ‘make’, ‘cause’, etc.​

The creation account has great significance for the rest of Scripture and how these terms are used in the original and their natural context is essential to really following the text as it was intended to be understood.

God created the universe (Gen. 1:1), life in general (1:21) and man in particular (Gen. 1:27). The term 'bara' is used once for original creation, once for the creation of life and three times for the creation of Adam and Eve. God also created Israel:

Especially striking is the use of bara in Isaiah 40-65. Out of 49 occurrences of the verb in the Old Testament, 20 are in these chapters. Because Isaiah writes prophetically to the Jews in Exile, he speaks of comfort based upon God’s past benefits and blessings to His people. Isaiah especially wants to show that, since Yahweh is the Creator, His is able to deliver His people from captivity. The God of Israel has created all things: “I have made the earth, and created (bara) man upon it: I, even my hands, have stretched out the heavens and all their host have I commanded” (Isa. 45:12). The gods of Babylon are impotent nonentities (Isa. 44:12-20; 46:1-7), and so Israel can expect God to triumph by effecting a new creation, (Isa.: 43:16-21; 65:17-25). (Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words: By W. E. Vine, Merrill Unger)

You have yet to demonstrate a strawman. Your failure by relying on the Greeks only supports my claim. Try again. I do get tired of false claims of creationists at times so excuse me if I get a bit rude.

The operative word was history, and you are obvious.

No, they are not. They are simply myths that were largely acquired by the interactions of ancient Hebrews with other cultures. The Noah's Ark myth arose from the Babylonian myths found in the Epic of Gilgamesh and that was based upon even older myths.

Unless of course, they were acquired from God. This account of creation was literally written in stone, it's part of the Ten Commandments and the whole reason for the Sabbath.

For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it. (Gen. 20:11)
​

God created life which is distinctly different from pagan myths, when tracing things back to original creation they invariably ended up with an elemental deity, earth, air, fire or water. This Babylonian myth indicates two water elementals, fresh and salt water apparently:

When in the height heaven was not named,
And the earth beneath did not yet bear a name,
And the primeval Apsu, who begat them,
And chaos, Tiamut, the mother of them both
Their waters were mingled together,
And no field was formed, no marsh was to be seen;
When of the gods none had been called into being. (Enuma Elish, the Epic of Creation)​

Notice at creation the 'gods' didn't even exist.

Obviously the doctrine of creation is the heart of the emphasis but the text also describes creation as being largely a matter of separation. The light from darkness, waters above and below, land and sea. The word (בָּדַל badal H914) is used five times in the creation account then not used again until Exodus, 'The vail shall divide (H914) unto you between the holy place and the most holy' (Exo. 26:33). This is no coincidence, the idea of sanctification is literally the idea of separation, something set aside for God's exclusive use.

 

[pitabread]

First of all evolution is the change of alleles (traits) in populations over time, not the a priori assumption of universal common ancestry by exclusively naturalistic means. That particular fallacy is called equivocation.

The theory of evolution encompasses both the mechanisms of biological evolution as well as the outcome (i.e. common descent).

There's no equivocation there. Just a basic understanding of what the ToE encompasses.