The Deception of Genesis

[justified]

He did not say that humans and animals were made in the same day. He made them into seperate.

Humans and land animals were made on day 6, the same day.

 

[Uphill Battle]

Humans and land animals were made on day 6, the same day.

yes, this is true. The text DOES however, show a distinction between the creation of animals, and the creation of man. I think that was the point.

 

[Critias]

Well, how does gravity, or the fact that sunlight is yellow instead of purple, speak of God's existence?

Science speaks of God's existence by pointing to God's rational thinking and orderliness. There is also the aesthetic beauty of creation (which is no different in evolutionary theory than in YEC theory).

Science does not speak of God's existence, whatsoever. Without the big bang to abiogenesis to evolution we have creation as the Bible teaches. Creation, speaks of and gives all credit to God, focusing on God and God alone.

So, in evolution specifically, which talks about our origins, how does it point to God? How would a person who doesn't know of God know God by this theory? How does evolution give God the credit and focus on God and God alone as the creation theory does?

Let's try and stick to the subject of the question that I am asking instead of side stepping it with questions on gravity that don't directly concern origins of life.

 

[random_guy]

Science does not speak of God's existence, whatsoever. Without the big bang to abiogenesis to evolution we have creation as the Bible teaches. Creation, speaks of and gives all credit to God, focusing on God and God alone.

So, in evolution specifically, which talks about our origins, how does it point to God? How would a person who doesn't know of God know God by this theory? How does evolution give God the credit and focus on God and God alone as the creation theory does?

Let's try and stick to the subject of the question that I am asking instead of side stepping it with questions on gravity that don't directly concern origins of life.

Yes, and considering that evolution doesn't directly concern with origins of life, why do you keep bringing it up?

 

[shernren]

Science does not speak of God's existence, whatsoever. Without the big bang to abiogenesis to evolution we have creation as the Bible teaches. Creation, speaks of and gives all credit to God, focusing on God and God alone.

So, in evolution specifically, which talks about our origins, how does it point to God? How would a person who doesn't know of God know God by this theory? How does evolution give God the credit and focus on God and God alone as the creation theory does?

Let's try and stick to the subject of the question that I am asking instead of side stepping it with questions on gravity that don't directly concern origins of life.

But questions of gravity do directly concern origins, though maybe not origins of life. Gravity is the only force that really governs the structure of the universe at a cosmological scale as far as we know presently. So a YEC must either modify gravity and its theory of GR (as has been attempted unsuccesfully) or ignore it, to explain how a universe can be as big as ours and yet 6000 years old. So I can similarly say that gravity denies God's creation account. Does that mean things shouldn't fall down?

In the end, evolution is a set of (mostly, granted) observable cause-effect relationships that dictate how genetics and environmental pressure interact. The theory of General Relativity is a set of (partly) observable cause-effect relationships that dictate how matter and spacetime interact. One is as "atheistic" as the other. And yet, the Christians who make a hue and cry about evolution in schools say nothing about GR in universities.

Science is basically a set of rules that say nature does this and that given God or any other supernatural forces do not interfere. If evolution is atheistic by that criterion, so is the rest of science from mechanics to electronics.

So no, science doesn't directly point a person to God. Nature does. But science tells us that nature is orderly and well-designed, and therefore indirectly that God is orderly and a good designer. Whereas "creation science" tells us that we cannot learn anything about what nature actually is from anything we observe about nature. What does that say about God?

 

[justified]

Science as a discipline cannot and should not concern itself with God; it should stay on its own territory and, if Christians are right, science will not able to help itself but uncover how God did things. That is a bit of faith Christians need to have these days but lack. For what reason, I am not sure.

 

[Critias]

There are two theories: Creation and Evolution. Paul teaches that Creation speaks of God, it points to Him.

In the creation theory, it points to God speaks of Him
In the evolutionary theory, it points to.....not God, speaks of....not God.

And many of you call the evolutionary theory good and rightly so to not speak of God. You applaud science for its silence about God when it studies God's work. Yet, when you study a painting, you almost always refer to the painter.

And evolution has everything to do with the beginnings of life, not how life began. Unless you are going to claim that now evolution wasn't what caused the diversification of life...

So, in light of Paul's teachings that creation is suppose to lead to the Creator, explain how evolution is better than creation to lead one to the Creator.

 

[justified]

There are two theories: Creation and Evolution. Paul teaches that Creation speaks of God, it points to Him.

No, he states that The Creation points to god: he uses Greek terms in Romans 1-2 which refer to the natural state of things and to Nature. But the act of creation he is not concerned with.

In the creation theory, it points to God speaks of Him
In the evolutionary theory, it points to.....not God, speaks of....not God.

I don't understand this. First of all, evolutionary theory proper, does not deal with creation. Matter still had to come from somewhere.

And many of you call the evolutionary theory good and rightly so to not speak of God. You applaud science for its silence about God when it studies God's work. Yet, when you study a painting, you almost always refer to the painter.

Yes, you do refer to the painter. But I think we're in a slightly different situation with creation than a painting. For one, a painting is not a creation; a painting is a rehashing or imaginitive interpretation. Creation is the making of matter. Evolution proper is the diversification/development of that matter.

 

[Uphill Battle]

No, he states that The Creation points to god: he uses Greek terms in Romans 1-2 which refer to the natural state of things and to Nature. But the act of creation he is not concerned with.


I don't understand this. First of all, evolutionary theory proper, does not deal with creation. Matter still had to come from somewhere.


Yes, you do refer to the painter. But I think we're in a slightly different situation with creation than a painting. For one, a painting is not a creation; a painting is a rehashing or imaginitive interpretation. Creation is the making of matter. Evolution proper is the diversification/development of that matter.

convienient then that Evolution refuses to address abiogenesis then, seeing as without it, it can't be true.

 

[justified]

convienient then that Evolution refuses to address abiogenesis then, seeing as without it, it can't be true.

false dichotomy. God can create life, and then it evolves. Please be more precise as "evolution" is a fact of life whereas abiogenesis is a theory some people are trying to prove.

 

[Critias]

No, he states that The Creation points to god: he uses Greek terms in Romans 1-2 which refer to the natural state of things and to Nature. But the act of creation he is not concerned with.

What does science study, the creation? Does science study the natural state of things in nature?

I don't understand this. First of all, evolutionary theory proper, does not deal with creation. Matter still had to come from somewhere.

Common descent deals with creation. From a Biblical prespective, mankind and animals are part of creation. Are you suggesting that mankind and animals are not? Evolutionary science deals with mankinds and animals life origins.

Yes, you do refer to the painter. But I think we're in a slightly different situation with creation than a painting. For one, a painting is not a creation; a painting is a rehashing or imaginitive interpretation. Creation is the making of matter. Evolution proper is the diversification/development of that matter.

Evolutionary science and common descent that falls under its umbrella do deal with single celled organisms that become multicellular then forms into animals and into man.(simplified)

These are God's creation, are they not?

 

[shernren]

Does Paul's "Creation" in "creation points to the Creator" specifically refer to the theory that the earth was created in 6 days 6000 years ago? And how so? Or does it simply mean "the universe that was created" in opposition to the Greeks' idea of an infinitely old universe without beginning?

Evolution ("descent with modification") can be true without abiogenesis. I for one am one of those "moderate evolutionists" who believe that there is little evidence for abiogenesis but quite some for common descent and macroevolution - hence the idea that God started life and then evolved it.

 

[Critias]

What I want explained is how does the evolutionary view point, point to a Creator?

Evolutions, TEs included, want the Creationary Theory done away with. Creationary Theory points to God, speaks of God, proclaims Him as the Creator. Not the people, but the Theory.

So, replacing/removing/discarding the Creationary Theory for the Evolutionary Theory, what in the Evolutionary Theory now points to God the Creator? How will people who know this Theory and do not know God, understand that God is the Creator?

 

[shernren]

To be frank, Critias, what I'm hearing from you is that the Creator can only be credited with a particular phenomenon when there is no rational, scientific explanation for it, since if it can be explained by human reason that would elevate the human above the Creator. Is that so? Because this has very wide implications.

God cannot be in control of the weather, since we can analyze it through the science of meteorology (even if only in retrospect, at present).
God cannot be holding the universe together, since we know it is the force of gravity that does so.
God cannot be responsible for providing the people of Israel with quail in the desert, since the quail were bound to fly over that area anyway as part of their annual migration (AFAIK).
In fact, by that same argument, if there really is "creation science" that can analyze creation scientifically then God was not responsible for creation either!

The problem is that (to take an idea of Philip Yancey's) we see God's interventions in history as interventions from above. Normally the course of history is flowing on its own, guided by scientific principles, devoid of God's interference or caring (for why would God care about something and yet not be involved in it?) - until something displeases God! And then crash go the laws of science and God redraws history with a miracle or two to fulfill His purposes. And then once the miracle is finished God retreats back to His "third heaven" or wherever He is watching creation from until He sees something He has to stop, again.

Such a view may have been sufficient for ancient civilizations where lightning and thunder and weather and existence itself seemed inexplicable miracles. Since a lot of the scientific phenomena through which God worked were unscientific to them then it was logical that God only worked independently and against science. But now that we can understand how these phenomena happened, it doesn't follow that the why of these phenomena - God's way of working in history - should change.

We should not see God's "intrusions" as intervening from above, but as outcroppings from below. God is present and actively supporting and motivating history from moment to moment, whether through rational, quantifiable means, or not. God is the "why" behind everything that happens, whether or not we know the "how" of the event or not. Within the context of your question, to me God is the one who took the scientific, understandable process of evolution and employed it in our universe to create a world that can support humanity, just as to you God is the one who miraculously and super-rationally created the world and the universe for humanity.

Creationism can also be used to support a deist worldview, one in which God created the universe and then abandoned it to man's sin and violence. Both creationism and evolutionism can be used by the sinner as an excuse to turn from God. No "theory" has any inherent Christian-ness other than the "theory" or belief that Jesus died on the cross for our sins and rose again in victory.

http://www.brown.edu/Administration/Brown_Alumni_Magazine/00/11-99/features/darwin.html

 

[Critias]

No. Genesis 1-3 speaks of God and what He has done. Genesis 1-2 is the Creation Theory. Creationists believe it is historically accurate in what Genesis 1-2 speaks of.

TEs want this Theory removed and discarded. They want they Evolutionary Theory to be its permenant replacement. Since both claim to study God's creation when applied, and creation itself speaks of the Creator, as does the Creation Theory, how will the Evolutionary Theory point to a Creator?

TEs want the Theory that points to God, gives credit to God, removed and replaced with a Theory that does not point to God or give Him credit for His handy work. Creation, in understanding where it has come from, speaks of God, so how does the Evolutionary Theory speak of God? How does it lead one to know there is a Creator?

I have already seem a vast amount of Christians say God didn't have an earthquake quake or the skies to rain, etc. I have seen what is attributed to God in the Bible, Christians say it is not God's doing but rather a natural process.

So, explain why this natural process that elimates God out of the picture is better than one that speaks of Him.

 

[justified]

No. Genesis 1-3 speaks of God and what He has done. Genesis 1-2 is the Creation Theory. Creationists believe it is historically accurate in what Genesis 1-2 speaks of.

I'm a creationist, but I don't believe Gen. 1-3 to be historically accurate.

 

[Micaiah]

I'm a creationist, but I don't believe Gen. 1-3 to be historically accurate.

Which parts and why?

I know some scientists are going to have trouble accepting this, but God is the best Person to give us information on Creation. He was the only Person who was present at the time of Creation. He was the only Person who witnessed what happened. Because He is omniscient, He knows every intricate scientific detail of how things came into existence. He is the ultimate witness. Not only that, but God was the Master Designer, and Master Builder of all that was created. God's credentials for providing us with accurate and factural information about Creation are impeccable.

Compare that to what scientists today know about such things. The comparison is pathetic. Two sentences from God on how animals were created are of more value than two hundered books written by the worlds most learned scientists.

The nice things for Christians is that in spite of His credentials, God has no need or desire to impress people with His knowledge. That was clearly not His intent when the author of Genesis was inspired. What we have are a number of clear and plain statements about how for example plants and animals were formed. There is enough information in those few statements to allow a Christian to recognise the fallacy of evolution. That is important, since that theory undermines some of the most important Christian doctrines.

 

[justified]

Which parts and why?

Read the first few pages of the thread. I posted this information there.

 

[Uphill Battle]

This leads me to a question... from what I read. Is God really limited to what we are? Do the laws of physics, etc... constrain him? If his creation violated every constraint which we are now under... so what?

 

[artybloke]

This leads me to a question... from what I read. Is God really limited to what we are? Do the laws of physics, etc... constrain him? If his creation violated every constraint which we are now under... so what?

There would be no problem if God just went "abracadabara" and the world was there, shiny and new, 6000 years ago. But the problem is that the earth appears to be from all the available evidence, aprox. 4.5 billion years old. Not only that, but there is evidence of traumatic events in the prehistory of the earth dating back to then: such as the crater left behind 69 million years ago that led to the death of the dinosaurs. It's rather like God creating Adam not only to look thirty but to have an appendix scar and memories of being five years and scraping his knee in the shoolyard. It looks, and feels, like a deception.

Now why would God create a world that looks like and bears all the scars of being 4.5 billion years old, when it's only 6000 years old? Isn't that not the tiniest bit sneaky? Because I don't believe in a sneaky God, I don't believe in creationism.