No Back Door

[AV1611VET]

Indeed, we've known each other long enough and I have enough respect for you that I think you deserve an honest answer.

Okay.

Thank you very much, Speedwell.

I pray you can "work out your salvation with fear and trembling" as well.

But please don't let a president (or anyone -- including me) cause consternation in your life.

 

[inquiring mind]

How so? I believe that God is the author of our being whether the theory of evolution is true or not. An Atheist does not believe that God is author of our being whether the theory of evolution is true or not. The existence of God is not relevant to a discussion about whether the theory of evolution is true or not. The theory of evolution is the same for both theists and atheists.

I meant the other half of the Creation & Evolution 'forum.'

I don't care very much about it unless it is used as a basis for denying the faith of other Christians, as creationists frequently do. You can interpret Genesis any way you want, so long as you understand that you don't own the book and that your interpretation is not normative for other Christians.

I hear you.

 

[Brightmoon]

So you're saying atheists are making an eternal mistake?

(Hit a nerve, didn't I?)

. Nah , IMHO atheists prevent fundies from abusing people .

 

[AV1611VET]

. Nah , IMHO atheists prevent fundies from abusing people .

But didn't you say some atheists are bullied into atheism by Fundamental creationist lies?

Creationism is responsible for a lot of the atheism ...

 

[inquiring mind]

Maybe because he could see that animals could breed and produce offspring that way?

Yes, he could see living things were breeding within their kind, we see it too. I happen to agree with the view that there are only variations from a large gene pool, and not macroevolution through mutations (even though they exist) from a small gene pool. Of course, many others see it differently. However, we all still see things breeding within their kind (however you define it) at the time.

When he said the first ones were created after their kind – wasn’t that a forward-looking statement, and as such, saying for example, the initial whales were being created according to later whales? I see what you’re saying, but even though recording the account from his present-day perspective, how/why would he have known to be so careful as to make such a forward-looking initial creation statement in that way? Leaving off ‘after their kind’ (no apparent reason to include it for the first ones) would have left open the possibility of macroevolution; instead, it seems to me he may have been closing the door on that mechanism... with no possible knowledge of it himself, and that’s what I find curious.

 

[tas8831]

Cool how the creationist sinks the ark without even trying.

 

[inquiring mind]

Cool how the creationist sinks the ark without even trying.

Care to elaborate some???

 

[Speedwell]

Care to elaborate some???

Too many "kinds" to fit on board.

 

[inquiring mind]

Too many "kinds" to fit on board.

Species would be even more... wouldn't it?

 

[Brightmoon]

But didn't you say some atheists are bullied into atheism by Fundamental creationist lies?

. No I meant that the superstitious ignorant pseudoscience nonsense that creationists claim is about a God created universe, is driving people away from faith. In droves!

 

[inquiring mind]

Wow, that’s taking the back door off the hinges!

 

[Speedwell]

Wow, that’s taking the back door off the hinges!

It's not really as bad as all that, depending on how you define "faith." Many of those driven from Fundamentalism wind up in other branches of the Christian religion, so they retain their faith in Christ even though Fundamentalists don't think they are "real" Christians any more. For example, Orthodox Christianity has provided a popular refuge for ex-Fundamentalists.

 

[Kylie]

Yes, he could see living things were breeding within their kind, we see it too. I happen to agree with the view that there are only variations from a large gene pool, and not macroevolution through mutations (even though they exist) from a small gene pool. Of course, many others see it differently. However, we all still see things breeding within their kind (however you define it) at the time.

Well yes, we don't expect to see a cat mate with a tortoise and produce a fish. Evolution says that is literally impossible.

Why do you not think that a sufficient number of variations would not result in macroevolution?

When he said the first ones were created after their kind – wasn’t that a forward-looking statement, and as such, saying for example, the initial whales were being created according to later whales?

Not sure what you mean by saying "created according to what came later."

I see what you’re saying, but even though recording the account from his present-day perspective, how/why would he have known to be so careful as to make such a forward-looking initial creation statement in that way? Leaving off ‘after their kind’ (no apparent reason to include it for the first ones) would have left open the possibility of macroevolution; instead, it seems to me he may have been closing the door on that mechanism... with no possible knowledge of it himself, and that’s what I find curious.

I don't see that this interpretation is valid. The "according to their kinds" line seems to me to be nothing more than saying that cats have baby cats and birds have baby birds. Again, evolution doesn't say otherwise.

 

[Jimmy D]

Follow the conversation please.

My mistake, you didn't imply that Brightmoon was an atheist, however, you are still wrong to suggest that....

in atheist-think, it's either a literal Genesis 1 or atheism ... right?

....was what Brightmoon was saying.

She was talking about the fruits of creationist dishonesty.

(I'm sure she's put you right on this but I thought I should respond to your post).

 

[inquiring mind]

Well yes, we don't expect to see a cat mate with a tortoise and produce a fish.

I don't.

Evolution says that is literally impossible.

So does Creation.

Why do you not think that a sufficient number of variations would not result in macroevolution?

There's no conclusive evidence of macroevolution after billions of years... why extrapolate from observable variation?

Not sure what you mean by saying "created according to what came later."

It couldn't mean 'according to what came before,' this was the initial creation. I'm just saying he was careful to include 'after its kind' in a forward-looking comment. This may not be a good analogy, but would you say, "I created a completely new house style, after that kind of house" unless 'maybe' you wanted to make sure everyone knew it didn't include elements of a previous style? Just curious is all, and yes, I might be reading too much into it.

 

[Jimmy D]

How so?

Sorry, I didn't see this until today.

I will repost something that forum member Papias wrote here if that's ok......

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

Some examples, by day of "creation":


Initial State

Watery abyss

wrong - Land has always existed on Earth

1

Light (no Sun yet)

wrong - Light without sun?

2

Firmament/inverted bowl

wrong - Hebrew word shows this to be solid, but there has never been a solid dome over the earth.

3

Dry land, then All land plants

wrong - sea animals preceded land plants

4

Moon, Sun, stars and the whole universe

wrong - Those existed long before life and most of the other things made in days 1-3.

5

Aquatic Animals & Birds

wrong - Birds were not before animals on land.

6

Land animals and humans

But this is a different order than Genesis 2.

7

Rest


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

 

[xianghua]

. No I meant that the superstitious ignorant pseudoscience nonsense that creationists claim is about a God created universe, is driving people away from faith. In droves!

are you saying that we have no evidence for the existence of god/designer?

 

[Speedwell]

are you saying that we have no evidence for the existence of god/designer?

No, that there is no evidence that it happened 6000 years ago according to a literal reading of Genesis.

The mere notion that God exists and is the author of our being is unfalsifiable and so is not relevant to the discussion.

 

[inquiring mind]

Sorry, I didn't see this until today.

I will repost something that forum member Papias wrote here if that's ok......

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

Some examples, by day of "creation":


Initial State

Watery abyss

wrong - Land has always existed on Earth

1

Light (no Sun yet)

wrong - Light without sun?

2

Firmament/inverted bowl

wrong - Hebrew word shows this to be solid, but there has never been a solid dome over the earth.

3

Dry land, then All land plants

wrong - sea animals preceded land plants

4

Moon, Sun, stars and the whole universe

wrong - Those existed long before life and most of the other things made in days 1-3.

5

Aquatic Animals & Birds

wrong - Birds were not before animals on land.

6

Land animals and humans

But this is a different order than Genesis 2.

7

Rest


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

I’m sure glad you used a repost, and yes, that is perfectly okay. I have been dreading writing lengthy answers to such questions every since I slipped-up and asked “How so.” I don’t think any of us want to write research papers here.

So, if it’s okay with you, let me just say you can find good explanations, which are not contrary to the Bible, for all these type questions in good bible commentaries. I use a very good one, composed by those who are very knowledgeable in the Bible. As your post states, Genesis 2:4-5 in particular, used to puzzle me in regard to the Genesis 1 account, until I read and studied my commentary. I’m not evading your question, I’m just saying there are reliable explanations, if you want to look.

 

[Jimmy D]

I’m sure glad you used a repost, and yes, that is perfectly okay. I have been dreading writing lengthy answers to such questions every since I slipped-up and asked “How so.” I don’t think any of us want to write research papers here.

So, if it’s okay with you, let me just say you can find good explanations, which are not contrary to the Bible, for all these type questions in good bible commentaries. I use a very good one, composed by those who are very knowledgeable in the Bible. As your post states, Genesis 2:4-5 in particular, used to puzzle me in regard to the Genesis 1 account, until I read and studied my commentary. I’m not evading your question, I’m just saying there are reliable explanations, if you want to look.

Fair enough, it’s not really the topic of the thread anyway.

I must say that I can’t get on board with the interpretations I’ve seen to reconcile the differences between Genesis 1 and what the sciences tell us about the history of the earth etc.

However, hopefully you can see why I don’t feel that the authors Genesis were spirit led.

(lol and my atheism probably has something to do with it)