Proof of Creation?

[flyingpenguin]

Thank you randman. That was very insightful.

As for the Holy Spirit giving you the correct interpretation, I completely agree. I believe that is why many scoffers look at the Bible and say it is nonsense. They do not have the Spirit in them to provide guidance and the truth. Without it, the Bible CANNOT make sense.

A lot of people would disagree with that, but the Bible itself says that. Sure you can look at the Bible from a historical or literary perspective without the Holy Spirit, but you cannot get the true meanings in terms of religious significance without it.

To Jerry...thanks for your great rebuttals. They are clear, concise and to the point.

As for why I can't accept macroevolution. I don't not just to spite scientists, but because I haven't seen evidence for it. Like randman said, the fossils never indicate a gradual growth into different species (like reptile to bird to mammal). They are clear differences. There is bird, reptile, mammal.

David

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

There is a separate thread for "transitionals" going on right now, but I will post this here. Transitionals do not only exist between major groups, but between closely related species as well. For example, in late cretaceous deposits of Alberta and Montana there have been found numerous transitional individuals between such species as Tyrannosaurus and Daspletosaurus, Gorgosaurus and Albertosaurus, Steroceras and Pachycephalosaurus and between Lameosaurus and Corythosaurus. These are individuals which are difficult to place into either one species or another - so much for species distinctness. SInce these species pairs do replace oneanother over time in the fossil record, these fossils clearly indicate the transition from one species to another.

 

[randman]

"randman:

Whose side are you on anyway?"

Explain please.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Just teasing you over your "old earth" comments.

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by flyingpenguin

As for why I can't accept macroevolution. I don't not just to spite scientists, but because I haven't seen evidence for it. Like randman said, the fossils never indicate a gradual growth into different species (like reptile to bird to mammal). They are clear differences. There is bird, reptile, mammal.

Which is archeoptryx, bird or reptile?

I would recommend you study the genes that build certain common proteins, as the similarity between them corresponds strongly to the predictions made from the fossil record of how closely-related species are.

 

[Freodin]

Originally posted by flyingpenguin
Thank you randman. That was very insightful.

As for the Holy Spirit giving you the correct interpretation, I completely agree. I believe that is why many scoffers look at the Bible and say it is nonsense. They do not have the Spirit in them to provide guidance and the truth. Without it, the Bible CANNOT make sense.

A lot of people would disagree with that, but the Bible itself says that. Sure you can look at the Bible from a historical or literary perspective without the Holy Spirit, but you cannot get the true meanings in terms of religious significance without it.

David

This is a little of topic, but what you have written there IS nonsense - with or without the Holy Spirit.

The Bible CANNOT make sense without divine guidance?

Well, where are you told to look for divine guidance? Let my guess... the Bible?

 

[randman]

"The Bible CANNOT make sense without divine guidance?

Well, where are you told to look for divine guidance? Let my guess... the Bible?"

These apparent paradox is only one in appearance. The Bible cannot be understood without help from the Holy Spirit. Believers generally know this as passages that are actually quite simple open up to them yet they couldn't grasp it before. It's almost as if the Bible has a spiritual code.
The reason we say to read the Bible for guidance is because we know from experience and the Bible itself that when one is seeking divine guidance and reads the Bible, God helps them. I have read portions of the Bible without really mentally understanding it for years, but "felt" it, and then one day, God graciously granted me the understanding in a remarkable manner. It is deeper than one supposes, much deeper.

 

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

Randman is so correct. I for years upon years read the bible but never understood it except when I asked for God's help. I know it sounds strange to an unbeliever but it's so true. Specially after you experience it for yourself.

 

[randman]

Thanks 86 for backing me up there. It is a phenomenon. One sad aspect of seminary is it can actually take you away from a love of the word of God as you study the Bible more from an academic view and less from an experiential view. I tend to think now that our daily bread is sufficient, if we would diligently seek it.

 

[flyingpenguin]

The statements I made sound like nonsense to a non-believer and that is fine.

But think of it this way. If you were an all-powerful being (which isn't something we can grasp, but go with me here). Would you write a book that ALL of its secrets would be available to everyone? Wouldn't you want those who worshipped you and believed in you to get more out of it?

 

[OneLargeToe]

If I was an all-powerful loving God who wanted his creations to love and worship me, then I would create a book that is easy to understand and comprehend.  Why would a loving God want to make his word SECRET?  Why the cryptic mess?

With your version of God, we have an entity that created beings with brains to reason with, but they are DAMNED for using them?

 

[Satoshi]

Originally posted by randman
The Bible cannot be understood without help from the Holy Spirit.

One may as well claim that without the Holy Spirit, "Battlefield Earth" is a horrible movie, but with it, everything falls into place.  Therefore, unbelievers should declare that "Battlefield Earth" is a wonderful movie.

 

[Joe V.]

I'm not so sure that even with the Holy Spirit could "Battlefield Earth" be a wonderful movie...

- Joe

 

[flyingpenguin]

I didn't say everything is cryptic in the Bible, but there is a lot more in it for believers than non-believers.

As for being damned for thinking. God doesn't do that. However, people will be judged for thinking that they know more than Him...that is called pride.

David

 

[No gods]

So.... back on topic, any proof or evidence for creation been posted here, yet?

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by flyingpenguin

I pose this to Christians and creationists. Not evolutionists. I have seen your posts where you give your arguements against creation. Now I would like to hear the arguements against evolution by the Creationists.

Thank you.
David

Here is a proof (certainly not the only one, but a proof, nonetheless):

1. Scripture is written as the authors are moved through the Holy Spirit.

2. Scripture is an accurate representation of God's revealed truth.

3. It is impossible for God to lie.

4. The plain meaning of Scripture describes creation in a way that is incompatible with evolution.

5. It tortures the text to interpret these incompatible passages as allegory or symbolism.

6. Therefore evolution is false.


Probable objections:

O. You can't prove there is a Holy Spirit, that Scripture is inspired or accurate, that there is a God, that it is impossible for God to lie, that one should accept the plain meaning of Scripture, or that Scripture is incompatible with evolution.

A. I could use prooftexts to demonstrate some of these things, but this is to Believers from a Believer, so most of these are assumptions we share. Scientists share unprovable assumptions, as well, so there's really no difference.

O. The above proof is not scientific.

A. So what? That's a scientist's criteria for determining the facts, not mine.

O. I believe God created all things the way they are through the big bang and evolution.

A. I'm very happy for you.

O. But your contrary conclusion is based on your private interpretation of Scripture, which is not objective.

A. Your conclusions are most likely based on imposing your scientific perspective on scripture. You do that because you believe that what you can observe "scientifically" is more reliable than what is written in plain language by God. You resolve the conflict by believing it is not plain language and write it off as symbolism or allegory. Again, I'm very happy for you.

O. But science is objective, whereas your interpretation of scripture is not.

A. Some observations upon which evolution is based are objective measurements and based on presumably constant physical laws. But you are combining this information with speculation on the past to reach your final conclusion. That is not objective. It is just as much subjective interpretation of the evidence as is interpretation of scripture. I am satisfied with my interpretation of scripture as pointing to the truth even if scientific observation seems to contradict my conclusion that evolution is false. Your interpretation satisfies you.

O. Physical laws are physical laws. They suggest an old earth and these laws don't change.

A. First of all, this isn't about the age of the earth, this is about creation vs. evolution. Second, if the laws of physics have changed, you probably wouldn't have any way to know they have changed, so it's an easy assertion to make without actually knowing if it's true. Third, even if the laws of physics don't change, the environment in which they operate can and does, and you can't "fix" that problem by asserting that the laws of physics don't change. For example, if there was far less C14 in the environment 10,000 years ago, after which the C14 increased to relative equilibrium over 1,000 years, that phenomenon would invalidate a tremendous number of dates derived using C14. I'm not arguing that this happened, just that your conclusions about dates based on C14 decay aren't true just because the rate of decay hasn't changed.

O. Not even those who believe the Bible is God's revealed truth can agree on how to interpret the verses on creation. How can you insist that your proof has any merit?

A. My "proof" satisfies me. Not even those who believe in the scientific method can agree on creation vs. evolution. How can you insist that your conclusion based on the scientific method that evolution is correct has any merit? Not even those who believe in evolution can agree on how evolution occurred. How can you insist that your confidence in the method of evolution based on "scientific" evaluation of the evidence has any merit? You can't, but your "proof" of evolution satisfies you. Deal.

 

[OneLargeToe]

Bottom line: Biblical creation cannot be proven via science.

 

[No gods]

Originally posted by npetreley


Here is a proof (certainly not the only one, but a proof, nonetheless):

Actually, "proof" not "A" proof was asked for in the first message of this thread.

Also, as pointed out before, "disproof" of evolution is NOT proof for creation. Can you help the original poster of this thread with some actual EVIDENCE for creation?

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by No gods

Can you help the original poster of this thread with some actual EVIDENCE for creation?

I already did. Just because the Bible doesn't satisfy YOU as evidence doesn't mean it isn't evidence.

 

[Sinai]

Originally posted by flyingpenguin
Creation, according to the Bible is this:

1. God created everything in 6 literal days (I don't want to hear about the Gap theory).
2. The heaven and earth was created mature...man was created full grown, animals were full grown, same with trees, stars, etc.

Sorry, but the Bible does not actually say either of those points (except with regard to Adam and Eve). That may be one interpretation of what the Bible says, but please don't limit what the Bible actually does say so that it only supports one particular interpretation to the exclusion of other (probably more accurate) interpretations. Thank you, flyingpenguin, for starting this topic: it's an interesting thread so far (am still reading my way through it at this point). Thanks for sharing your inputs and views.