Someone help me: as a Creationist, I have God; as a would be Evolutionist, I have what?

[Jamdoc]

While I am well aware the word 'evolution' has been applied to a range of things, what I and what I believe most other creationists mean by the term is non-life springing to life by itself and one cell creatures gradually changing over millions of years into fish, animals, primates and man. This is because the term is loaded and what most people think of when it is mentioned.



This is what we call specialization. We believe God created kinds.
Genesis 1
24 And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.”

We don't know exactly what a kind was since they are not around any longer but it was an animal that was capable of producing a range of species and breeds. Beagles and Alaskan Malamutes came from a dog kind.
One test is if animals can breed together like tigers and lions. But due to loss of genetics material, some have lost this ability even if they originated from the same kind.

We also believe kinds went onto the ark not breeds.
19 You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. 20 Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive.



This we also call specialization. We believe the original kind contained all the varieties of genes that all species and breeds that came from it will ever show.
The resistant bacteria had the gene needed to resist. The bacteria without the gene died off and the bacteria with the gene flourished.
This is in contrast to evolution that says the bacteria developed the ability at some point.



Creation:
Day 1)Light source which wasn't the sun
Day 2)Sky and water vapour canopy, Land and sea
Day 3)Plants
Day 4)sun, moon and stars.
Day 5)Sea creatures and flying creatures, including birds and insects
day 6) Land animals including dinosaurs. Man

All made 'very good'. No death. Death only begins after sin. Death is a thief and an enemy that does not belong and will one day be taken away.


Evolution:
Big Bang
sun and solar system developed slowly from cosmic gas and dust.
chemical origin of life, one cell creatures.
Uni cellular- Chordata- Lobe Finned- Amphibia
Reptile- T.Form- P Robustas - H.Erectus- H.Sapiens

All occurring over millions and billions of years while things died. Death, more death and yet more death. Death is simply a mechanism to weed out the weak and non-suitable.



Magic being your word for miracle?
God created
Manah fell from heaven
A virgin gave birth
the blind and crippled were healed
Jesus died and rose again and ascended into heaven

No miracle is greater than another but if you question creation why not question the others?



Far better to assume the Bible is wrong than science, right? How about the scandalous idea that evolutionary science could be wrong? You realize the world they are testing is not the world God made? You realize that not only was it covered with water and mud in a global flood, but the world after the fall and before the flood was a greenhouse with long life and long growing periods. The water canopy collapsed at the flood allowing in space radiation. Across the globe volcanoes erupted creating lightning and electricity across the planet.
The Bible gives a framework with which to work in. If science, which is really just man and what he has learned and what he thinks falls outside the framework then science is the one that is wrong.



Death is very much the enemy and a huge part of evolution.

I don't see how any of this conflicts. You're looking at before the fall, so? Things died after the fall and new species could have evolved, from their kind, after the fall, then many things died off but something of each kind was saved, and then new species evolved from those kinds since the flood.
I said evolution as a process is not incompatible with the bible, I didn't say that a naturalist worldview was compatible.

 

[coffee4u]

I don't see how any of this conflicts. You're looking at before the fall, so? Things died after the fall and new species could have evolved, from their kind, after the fall, then many things died off but something of each kind was saved, and then new species evolved from those kinds since the flood.
I said evolution as a process is not incompatible with the bible, I didn't say that a naturalist worldview was compatible.

Did you read what I put, at all?
What you are calling 'evolution' I call specialisation.
I explained this in my first two paragraphs.

 

[Jamdoc]

Did you read what I put, at all?
What you are calling 'evolution' I call specialisation.
I explained this in my first two paragraphs.

you can call it what you want but the term generally accepted for hereditary changes in populations is evolution, microevolution to be specific.

 

[The Barbarian]

We have created a definition for life that fits what we see.
Certainly God knows what death is. Certainly God does not lie. If God said we died the moment we ate from that tree, we did. Let God be true and every human being a liar.

Precisely. So we know it wasn't a physical death, but a spiritual one. Adam eats from the tree, and then lives on physically for many years thereafter.

But, more than that changed.
And, Adam was permitted to eat from the tree of life, which would have "caused him to live for ever" - sounds like immortality to me.

Would have been. But God prevented Adam from doing so, and thereby Adam remained mortal.

It also sounds physical, since it is something ingested.

There were no magical fruits that conferred a sense of right and wrong, or gave one immortality. Those are parables for whatever the two of them did in defiance of God, and for the way it could have been if they remained forever ignorant of good and evil.

But until they knew good and evil, they were unable to have fellowship with God. And this is the way, I think, that God made humans free to choose, and yet potentially capable of that fellowship.

Consider how He did this:
"Adam, I've made this beautiful garden for you. Take care of it, enjoy all the things I've provided for you, but don't ever eat from that tree over there. No, not that one; that one right there. The day you do, something terrible will happen."

Given human nature, you don't need to be God, to realize what was going to happen eventually. And then the snake appears. Snakes were, in the Middle East, symbols of wisdom and immortality; it was a snake that stole immortality from Gilgamesh.

And the snake suggests that the forbidden tree would be pretty good eating. Eve says that God told them they would die if they ate from it.

Snake (apparently a Biblical literalist) says "No, you won't die. You'll become like God." Notice the snake uses part of the truth to deceive her. They eat from the tree, become like God, knowing good and evil, and realize that they are flawed. They cover up and hide from God, fearing Him for the first time. They didn't die physically that day, but they are now spiritually dead, being potentially able to have fellowship with God, but unable to be truly good.

Hence the estrangement of man from God and the garden and the necessity of a Savior to atone for the sin.

How many RC Saints withstood things society would consider biologically impossible?

All things are possible with God. Miracles are a teaching tool, not the way He makes our world work.

I'm assuming you're RC, but we could talk icons.

I don't know precisely what Eastern Orthodox Catholics think of icons, but the Roman Catholic Church says they are mere sacramentals, visual reminders of something spiritual, and that they have no intrinsic power whatever.

2132: ...Religious worship is not directed to images in themselves, considered as mere things, but under their distinctive aspect as images leading us on to God incarnate. the movement toward the image does not terminate in it as image, but tends toward that whose image it is.

Do Catholics not hold God's truth as The Truth and man's as inferior?

Truth either is true or it's not truth at all. Relativism is not part of the Church's teaching.

First, as philosopher Edward Feser suggests, we need to distinguish two forms of relativism. The first claims, “There is no truth.” The second claims, “There is no absolute truth.”
Is It True that There Is No Truth?

Both of these have logical problems. It's worth a read. But the idea that there is an absolute truth implies that truth is true, regardless of where you find it; it doesn't become false if a heretic says "there is only one God."

Hence The Church's position that it denies nothing that is holy or true in other religions.

It's the only logically consistent stand for one who believes there is an objective truth.

 

[The Barbarian]

you can call it what you want but the term generally accepted for hereditary changes in populations is evolution, microevolution to be specific.

Or in the case of speciation, "macroevolution."

 

[Cis.jd]

Did you read what I put, at all?
What you are calling 'evolution' I call specialisation.
I explained this in my first two paragraphs.

Your entire reply was “i don't like facts... i don't know anything about this stuff and I don't think I need too so I’ll call things the way I want too because I don’t find being academically accurate and knowing what I am talking about is important compared to my literal fundamentalistic views of Genesis”.

 

[The Barbarian]

How Augustine Reined in Science

From your link:
"But suppose a biologist says that the only explanation for the origin of cells is spontaneous generation, that is, origin without any previous cause."

First, no biologist with any sense at all would say that the origin of cells is spontaneous generation. Spontaneous generation is the idea that complex metazoans can develop from rotting organic matter. Which is hooey.

Second, even if spontaneous generation were true, it wouldn't be possible without previous causes.

This guy might be a good theologian, but he's not very good at science or philosophy.

The Christian immediately knows that something is amiss, for several reasons.

I mentioned two. There's something else. You see, science, by it's very methodology is limited to the natural. So while it can't deny the miraculous, it can't confirm it, either. This isn't much of a problem for scientists, since science only deals with the natural. That's how it works for plumbers, too.

Does that mean that a scientist couldn't offer up Eucharist at a mass? Actually it doesn't. The scientist who developed the Big Bang theory did so.

Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître RAS Associate was a Jesuit trained Belgian Catholic priest, mathematician, astronomer, and professor of physics at the Catholic University of Louvain.

This contradicts the statements of Genesis that all things have their origin from God. Even if we interpret the chaos and formlessness (in Hebrew tohuand bohu) of Genesis 1:2 as a primordial soup, verse one still affirms that the primordial soup came from God (“In the beginning God created the heavens and earth”). What should we do?

Render unto biologists those things that are biologists' and to God, those things that are God's. I'm pretty sure Georges didn't insert cosmology into his liturgy, and I know for a fact, he didn't insert God into his theory, even if he was aware that God was the ultimate cause of all things.

Science can't deal with the supernatural. But scientists can.

 

[The Barbarian]

Death is very much the enemy

No longer. At least not for those who follow Jesus. He defeated death for all time. We should not be afraid of death.

and a huge part of evolution.

A huge part of biology, actually. It's the way His world works.

 

[joshua 1 9]

The one sacrifice was needed, that was all.

Yes, Jesus made the sacrifice for the redemption of all of creation.

 

[Cis.jd]

From your link:
"But suppose a biologist says that the only explanation for the origin of cells is spontaneous generation, that is, origin without any previous cause."

That is why the word “suppose” is in there. It being theoretical. Your whole argument fails due to missing that out.

I mentioned two. There's something else. You see, science, by it's very methodology is limited to the natural. So while it can't deny the miraculous, it can't confirm it, either. This isn't much of a problem for scientists, since science only deals with the natural. That's how it works for plumbers, too.

Irrelevant. Because this doesn't dispute the classification of it being design. Pending and progress do not degrade a miracle.. and just because there are natural factors involved (atoms, energy, etc) doesnt eliminate it as being a miracle. Just like when Jesus cured the blind by spitting at the dirt as theologist say. His spit had the same dna and matter, hydro, etc like elements in its composition as well as the dirt.

Render unto biologists those things that are biologists' and to God, those things that are God's. I'm pretty sure Georges didn't insert cosmology into his liturgy, and I know for a fact, he didn't insert God into his theory, even if he was aware that God was the ultimate cause of all things.

Science can't deal with the supernatural. But scientists can.

Your reasoning is purely self-rationalism, you are even making your own phrases “leave biology to biology” why does that matter when we have every evidence that all biology and the cosmos are systematically put in place and that even St Augustine theorizes everything beginning progressively? The problem with you is that you irrationally assume that progressive states mean a lack of power which means you are basing your views on your personal satisfaction view of God and refusing to understand and comprehend the evidence when presented to you.

 

[The Barbarian]

Your reasoning is purely self-rationalism, you are even making your own phrases “leave biology to biology” why does that matter when we have every evidence that all biology and the cosmos are systematically put in place and that even St Augustine theorizes everything beginning progressively? The problem with you is that you irrationally assume that progressive states mean a lack of power

No. My position assumes that God is intimately connected to every particle of the universe. It only functions because He wills it so. He confines himself to a set of rules that make the universe orderly, mostly predictable, and livable. Only exception is miracles, which are to teach us something, not a case where he must tinker with creation to do His will. It recognizes a more powerful God than most alternative conceptions.

which means you are basing your views on your personal satisfaction

While science can't draw theological implications from nature, scientists can.

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable.

So what can we see about His power and divinity?

He is rational and parsimonius. Ultimately, nature functions according to a very few laws, or maybe just one. The universe, at the bottom exhibits elegance. This, scientists recognize. Whenever a theory is really complex and ugly, it usually means that there's a better and simpler one to be found.

At the quantum level, things are apparently irreducibly random. In our world, things are regular and dependable because of the law of large numbers. This, as we discussed earlier, means that replaying the universe (short of divine intervention, setting aside His rules) would produce somewhat different details. But experience with isolated continents show we'd have the same kinds of creatures, albeit of different taxa. Analogies, not homologies.

Of course, as St. Thomas Aquinas remarks, divine providence only requires that something happen, and those things that He wants to happen by necessity will happen by necessity, and those things He wills to happen by contingency will happen by contingency.

For reasons no one really knows, primates had excessively large brains from the most primitive examples on. So that may be one example of St. Tom's understanding.

At any rate, it is a satisfactory way to look at it for me. It has the virtue of fitting what I see in nature. Sometimes, when I'm out by myself somewhere in nature, the whole thing fits together, the biology, the physics, the interconnected rationality of all of it, and I can apprehend something of His nature in creation.

It's an epiphany.

 

[coffee4u]

No longer. At least not for those who follow Jesus. He defeated death for all time. We should not be afraid of death.



A huge part of biology, actually. It's the way His world works.

Death will not be completely defeated until the New Heavens and New Earth. Because right now we will die unless the Lord returns before we do. Death is about the only sure thing in life.

Revelation 21:4
He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death' or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away."

 

[The Barbarian]

Death will not be completely defeated until the New Heavens and New Earth. Because right now we will die unless the Lord returns before we do. Death is about the only sure thing in life.

Death is defeated now. It hold no terror for a follower of Jesus. Death merely brings us to Him.

1 Corinthians 15:56 For sin is the sting that results in death, and the law gives sin its power. 57 But thank God! He gives us victory over sin and death through our Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[coffee4u]

Death is defeated now. It hold no terror for a follower of Jesus. Death merely brings us to Him.

1 Corinthians 15:56 For sin is the sting that results in death, and the law gives sin its power. 57 But thank God! He gives us victory over sin and death through our Lord Jesus Christ.

So you disagree with Revelation 21:4 then? That there will one day be no more death?

 

[Cis.jd]

No. My position assumes that God is intimately connected to every particle of the universe. It only functions because He wills it so. He confines himself to a set of rules that make the universe orderly, mostly predictable, and livable. Only exception is miracles, which are to teach us something, not a case where he must tinker with creation to do His will. It recognizes a more powerful God than most alternative conceptions.

But your conception is based off an invalid understanding of what design means and its the total opposite to the examples with in the Church and how she taught the concept. You are giving assumptions that are not just your owns but lacking any reason and evidence. Your views don't matter when it is factual that the universe has a language engineered in it. All these are read through equations and all show progression. So really, why are you responding with “your views” as if it means anything towards the facts shown?

While science can't draw theological implications from nature, scientists can.

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable.

So what can we see about His power and divinity?

He is rational and parsimonius. Ultimately, nature functions according to a very few laws, or maybe just one. The universe, at the bottom exhibits elegance. This, scientists recognize. Whenever a theory is really complex and ugly, it usually means that there's a better and simpler one to be found.

At the quantum level, things are apparently irreducibly random. In our world, things are regular and dependable because of the law of large numbers. This, as we discussed earlier, means that replaying the universe (short of divine intervention, setting aside His rules) would produce somewhat different details. But experience with isolated continents show we'd have the same kinds of creatures, albeit of different taxa. Analogies, not homologies.

This is irrelevant, again. You are arguing about nothing here.

Of course, as St. Thomas Aquinas remarks, divine providence only requires that something happen, and those things that He wants to happen by necessity will happen by necessity, and those things He wills to happen by contingency will happen by contingency.

For reasons no one really knows, primates had excessively large brains from the most primitive examples on. So that may be one example of St. Tom's understanding.

I am not arguing that creation is false. Creation is a component of design. Creation is simply putting something into existence, while design is when there are elements put in with a purpose. That is why St Aquinas also said The beauty, order and design of the universe testify to the greatness of its Author.

For example I can draw a comic book character, he is male, in his 20s, has a mask, looks like a soldier whatever. This is called concept art - creation. I then detail the character, the mask is color red because it symbolizes his affiliation or past.. the mask also serves his story.. this is when creation becomes a design. Im not just putting a character to existence but i’ve given him details that serve a purpose.

I don’t understand why you are still pushing your wrong understanding of what “design” means.

 

[Nancy Hale]

There were no magical fruits that conferred a sense of right and wrong, or gave one immortality. Those are parables for whatever the two of them did in defiance of God, and for the way it could have been if they remained forever ignorant of good and evil.

Didn't it though? They knew they were naked. Cain and Able brought firstfruits, the law hadn't been written in stone yet.
And fellowship; it appears God and man spent time together in the garden quite literally. Did God desire something else, some other relationship? And you say "human nature being what it is" but all we know is fallen human nature apart from Jesus who is fully man (along with fully God) Is it incorrect to think unfallen human nature would look like the only human without original sin? I honestly don't know.
Forgive my limited protestant knowledge of RC, I mean no disrespect. I thought Icons and Saints were two names for the same thing. EO Icons seem exactly the same as Saints to someone; well, to be honest I've not done a comparison. I've grown my understanding of RC more than EO. I don't think saints are worshipped or prayed too, but more like if I were to ask my grandmother to pray for me, is that correct? It's just that RC is extra careful who they ask to pray for them, which is pretty smart.

Snake (apparently a Biblical literalist) says "No, you won't die. You'll become like God." Notice the snake uses part of the truth to deceive her. They eat from the tree, become like God, knowing good and evil, and realize that they are flawed. They cover up and hide from God, fearing Him for the first time. They didn't die physically that day, but they are now spiritually dead, being potentially able to have fellowship with God, but unable to be truly good.

I have dozens of questions about the temptation alone. When God told Adam not to eat from that tree, Eve had not been separated from him yet. The NT says sin entered the world thru Adam. But, that's all just musings, it doesn't change anything.
I do know and understand the traditional teachings. I accept them.
Philosophers, not so much since college. Caves, shadows, chains and boxes with cats and trolleys are fun and all, but I try to avoid them. (Yeah, I know, but I figured it's close enough)

 

[The Barbarian]

I don't think saints are worshipped or prayed too, but more like if I were to ask my grandmother to pray for me, is that correct?

It's that "communion of saints" thing in the Nicene Creed.

boxes with cats

You mean the Schrödinger's Cat thing? I always wondered about that. When the cat is sitting in the box, there's a small, but real probability that Schrödinger will have a heart attack and die. But until the cat opens the box to see, and the wave function collapses, Schrödinger is neither dead nor alive.

Or so some physicists say.

 

[The Barbarian]

But your conception is based off an invalid understanding of what design means and its the total opposite to the examples with in the Church and how she taught the concept. You are giving assumptions that are not just your owns but lacking any reason and evidence.

Words mean things. Unless you use it in the informal meaning of "intent", it means to plan or prepare something. Which would be unnecessary for God. On the other hand, if you merely mean "intent", then it removes the idea of a plan.

Your views don't matter when it is factual that the universe has a language engineered in it.

Engineering
en·gi·neer·ing | \ ˌen-jə-ˈnir-iŋ
\

Definition of engineering

1 : the activities or function of an engineer

2a : the application of science and mathematics by which the properties of matter and the sources of energy in nature are made useful to people

b : the design and manufacture of complex products software engineering

3 : calculated manipulation or direction (as of behavior) social engineering — compare genetic engineering

It seems odd to put God into that category. He's a creator, not an engineer. He has no need to calculate or plan.

 

[The Barbarian]

So you disagree with Revelation 21:4 then? That there will one day be no more death?

I'm pointing out that (as scripture says) that death is defeated, and we no longer have to fear it.
1 Corinthians 15:56 For sin is the sting that results in death, and the law gives sin its power. 57 But thank God! He gives us victory over sin and death through our Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[Cis.jd]

Words mean things. Unless you use it in the informal meaning of "intent", it means to plan or prepare something. Which would be unnecessary for God. On the other hand, if you merely mean "intent", then it removes the idea of a plan.

Look at how your reasoning is self invented. Why are you making up such foolish arguments with no shame? Intent is a synonym of plan.

Engineering
en·gi·neer·ing | \ ˌen-jə-ˈnir-iŋ
\

Definition of engineering

1 : the activities or function of an engineer

2a : the application of science and mathematics by which the properties of matter and the sources of energy in nature are made useful to people

b : the design and manufacture of complex products software engineering

3 : calculated manipulation or direction (as of behavior) social engineering — compare genetic engineering

It seems odd to put God into that category. He's a creator, not an engineer. He has no need to calculate or plan.

And all of this is shown in the universe, especially #2 and #3. If you think its odd for God to do that, then who did it and how is it factually observable in the universe? By your logic that means this site was never created - having all these codes such html/css/js and whatever programed behind the interface.

Are you just replying for the sake of humoring yourself because seriously you are talking nonsense.