One thing I don't understand about the creationist position

[Rachel20]

where you have plants but no sun or moon?

Light is just radiation - which in even the BB was one of the first things around. So why would I require solar light in order to have plants?

 

[pitabread]

That's an atheistic response but all things created are used to point to God and in being aware of God the response is to praise and worship Him.

That's just the way it is.

And I'm not disputing that in the slightest. At no point in this thread have I made any claims that God doesn't exist. The entire thread is based on the premise that God exists and created life on Earth. The question is a simply a matter of the method God used.

If you think evolution is inherently "atheistic" then that's a limitation you are placing on things. It's not coming from me.

Do you mean like taking a tree and using tools to make a house? That is not doing something better than God. The carpenter has raw material. God uses faith which isn't material to create all things material. God is not the limited one.

I'm not suggesting that God is limited. Those suggestions seem to be coming from creationists when they insist God can't use evolution.

Your first reply on this post indicates that it has everything to do with man-made atheism which does not recognize God as God.

Again, I'm allowing for the premise that God exists and created life. The question is simply regarding the method.

All this talk about atheism is a red herring and not relevant to the discussion.

No because it's man made. It exists solely as a counterfeit explanation for the existing universe that God created with His own divine power.

Evolution isn't man made. It's a process observed among biological organisms. IOW, it's something that already existed in the world.

So why couldn't God have invented that process and used it to diversity biological forms on the Earth?

 

[Speedwell]

God would rather redeem every atheist.

While you and your fellow creationists would rather drive from Christ and their salvation in Him all other Christians who disagree with you. You are attempting to hold the Gospel of Christ as hostage to a literal interpretation of Genesis.

 

[fwGod]

No, that's the big lie of creationism. Creationists, for some reason known only to themselves, are attempting to hold the Gospel of Christ as hostage to a literal interpretation of Genesis. They paint all opposition, whether from science or from other Christians, as "atheistic."

You've made some broad statements without any examples. So I'll have to consider them to be no more than ineffective inaccurate opinions.

 

[pitabread]

You've made some broad statements without any examples. So I'll have to consider them to be no more than ineffective inaccurate opinions.

There are a lot of creationists on this forum that don't consider non-creationist Christians to be real Christians.

 

[fwGod]

There is no "atheist doctrine" and it's not even relevant to this discussion.

You had your chance to provide a term but you didn't so atheist doctrine it is.

And, whenever you give your atheist views in these posts then its useful in the discussion whenever and however I deem to mention it.

The question is what God could have done.

The question is irrelevant because God didn't.

 

[pitabread]

And, whenever you give your atheist views in these posts then its useful in the discussion whenever and however I deem to mention it.

For the record I'm not even an atheist.

The question is irrelevant because God didn't.

It's a question of what God could or could not have done. What is preventing God from using evolution to diversify life on Earth? So far the only thing preventing it seems to be that creationists can't imagine God doing that. That you're trying to shut down the discussion in your response speaks directly to that.

 

[Speedwell]

You've made some broad statements without any examples. So I'll have to consider them to be no more than ineffective inaccurate opinions.

As Christian, an Anglican--what people like you have called a "Bible-hating, Christ denying commie" for my beliefs--I offer a personal example and can provide as many more as you like. The vicious hostility is rampant, even in a forum like this which is heavily policed against such things. The only way I can account for it is that creationists are trying to take possession of the Gospel and deny its saving power to anyone who disagrees with them about Genesis.

 

[fwGod]

There are a lot of creationists on this forum that don't consider non-creationist Christians to be real Christians.

If I was as concerned about it as you are, then I'd give my testimony to give them something else to consider.

 

[pitabread]

If I was as concerned about it as you are, then I'd give my testimony to give them something else to consider.

I'm not particularly concerned about it. I just think it's interesting that creationists are more than willing to "eat their own" for stepping out of line.

 

[Speedwell]

If I was as concerned about it as you are, then I'd give my testimony to give them something else to consider.

I'm not concerned about it--you can't steal the Gospel from me--I just want to know why you would try to do such a thing.

 

[fwGod]

For the record I'm not even an atheist.

You are an agnostic. But that is not the word Christian.

It's a question of what God could or could not have done. What is preventing God from using evolution to diversify life on Earth?

You are beating a dead horse. God already used His divine power to diversify life on earth.. without the man-made concept of evolution.

God made some animals that could be genetically altered in small ways that man has discovered how to do it. There are other animals that cannot be genetically altered. That's diversity too.

So far the only thing preventing it seems to be that creationists can't imagine God doing that.

It would take imagination to think that God would bother using evolution when He's already accomplished the creation of all things without it.

That you're trying to shut down the discussion in your response speaks directly to that.

No it speaks directly to you not seeing an end to the discussion.

 

[pitabread]

You are an agnostic. But that is not the word Christian.

It's also not the same thing as an atheist though.

You are beating a dead horse. God already used His divine power to diversify life on earth.. without the man-made concept of evolution.

Stating what you think God did or didn't do doesn't address the issue as to why God couldn't have used evolution.

God made some animals that could be genetically altered in small ways that man has discovered how to do it. There are other animals that cannot be genetically altered. That's diversity too.

What do you mean there are animals that cannot be "genetically altered"?

I'm not following what the above has to do with biological evolution and whether God could have used it to diversify species.

It would take imagination to think that God would bother using evolution when He's already accomplished the creation of all things without it.

I think that God is not so limited in that fashion. Again, simply asserting what think God did is not the same thing as saying what God couldn't have done.

Let me ask you this: If God wanted to use evolution to diversify life on Earth, is that something they could do?

No it speaks directly to you not seeing an end to the discussion.

I started this thread. Of course I'm not seeking an end to the discussion.

 

[fwGod]

I'm not concerned about it--you can't steal the Gospel from me--I just want to know why you would try to do such a thing.

Try to do what such thing? You spoke of other Christians.. don't involve me in it just because I gave you some advice.

 

[BobRyan]

Light is just radiation - which in even the BB was one of the first things around. So why would I require solar light in order to have plants?

Go to anywhere outside our solar system to any of the rocks or Ort Belt or any object in space and see how helpful light from the BB would be for growing plants. the fact is even on Earth with all the light we get from starts and the BB - plants would not grow without the sun.

Bit here is the bigger question for you - what problem do you solve by lumping all of the universe into that 7 days of Genesis 1-2?

Why not leave that alone and just limit the scope to the "two lights" on Day 4 ... one for the day (the sun) and the other for the night (the moon)? It is easier to deal with life on Earth rather than "all stars and all life in the entire universe"? Why expand the scope of the problem to be solved to that level when there is no need to do it??

 

[Speedwell]

Try to do what such thing? You spoke of other Christians.. don't involve me in it just because I gave you some advice.

So why are creationists trying to hold the Gospel hostage to a literal Genesis?

 

[fwGod]

I started this thread. Of course I'm not seeking an end to the discussion.

You know perfectly well that I was only speaking of the end of the discussion with me.

You apparently enjoy marathon discussions but my time is minimal for exchanges with strangers when I have a family to give my greater attention to so if you post something else I will not respond.

 

[pitabread]

You know perfectly well that I was only speaking of the end of the discussion with me.

You apparently enjoy marathon discussions but my time is minimal for exchanges with strangers when I have a family to give my greater attention to so if you post something else I will not respond.

Fair. Although I was hoping you might elaborate on your comment about animals not being able to be "genetically altered" and what that has to do with God not being able to use biological evolution. It's the first thing I mentioned where you appear to be suggesting a real, biological constraint.

But if you have more pressing priorities, fair enough. Have a good day.

 

[BobRyan]

There are a lot of creationists on this forum that don't consider non-creationist Christians to be real Christians.

The only way I can account for it is that creationists are trying to take possession of the Gospel and deny its saving power to anyone who disagrees with them about Genesis.

how does this have anything to do with the topic of the thread "One thing I don't understand about the creationist position"?

 

[Rachel20]

Go to anywhere outside our solar system to any of the rocks or Ort Belt or any object in space and see how helpful light from the BB would be for growing plants. the fact is even on Earth with all the light we get from starts and the BB - plants would not grow without the sun.

That is now, not the same conditions. I can grow a plant in a dark room with artificial light. No sun needed.

Bit here is the bigger question for you - what problem do you solve by lumping all of the universe into that 7 days of Genesis 1-2?

Why not leave that alone and just limit the scope to the "two lights" on Day 4 ... one for the day (the sun) and the other for the night (the moon)? It is easier to deal with life on Earth rather than "all stars and all life in the entire universe"? Why expand the scope of the problem to be solved to that level when there is no need to do it??

The 7 days of Genesis involved the creation of the entire universe, you can't leave it out. And I'm not trying to solve any problem, just curious what is the truth. It's not a theological thing for me.