Various Creation Theories . . .

[SpinaticFanatic]

Hello everyone, I was just thinking about various Creation theories. What do you guys think about The Hydro Plate theory? How about the Hovind theory? I mean do we really have evidence that the Earth used to be at a different axis? Does anyone have extra info about this (web sites, books etc.)? How about the canopy theory? whats your take on this? was there one was there not one why, why not? I really havent made up my mind about the canopy, and according to the Hovind theory, there really isnt need of one, Then again Walt Browns book in the beginning he gives reasons why there probably wasnt a canopy. What are your thoughts on this? Any good references I should check out? Thanks for your help!

 

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

The Canopy Theory is one I like even though scientists are still working out the problems with it since even a small canopy would add a lot of extra heat to the earth. I don't believe our axis has ever been different. I don't think there is reason to believe it was different so I disagree with Hovind there. As AIG has posted:

"‘Earth’s axis was vertical before the Flood.’ There is no basis for this claim. Seasons are mentioned in Genesis 1:14 before the Flood, which strongly suggests an axial tilt from the beginning. Some creationists believe that a change in axial tilt (but not from the vertical) started Noah’s Flood. But a lot more evidence is needed and this idea should be regarded as speculative for now. Furthermore, computer modelling suggests that an upright axis would make temperature differences between the poles and equator far more extreme than now, while the current tilt of 23.5° is ideal. The Moon has an important function in stabilizing this tilt, and the Moon’s large relative size and the fact that its orbital plane is close to the Earth’s (unlike most moons in our solar system) are design features."

I don't disagree with all parts of Hovind's theory there but I certainly think there are some holes in it.

 

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

To read a debate between creation believing scientists on various plate theories go here.

 

[mhess13]

Kent Hovind's theory makes the most sense to me. Hovind incorporates the Hydroplate Theory into his own

 

[Dracil]

Don't forget Theistic Evolution. Like it or not, it still falls under Creation.

 

[keyarch]

Don't forget Theistic Evolution. Like it or not, it still falls under Creation.

In a 'TE' model, could you clarify for us just what God created; when; and how it fits with scripture (verses are helpful).

 

[mark kennedy]

I don't really have time to go into any depth here due to the holidays but I will offer a couple of thoughts. First and foremost, the one big difference between creationism and Theistic evolution is that TE does not accept the young earth scenerio and accept the single common ancestor model on scientific grounds as well as theological. This, it should be understood, does not in anyway diminish their ability to embrace Christian theism since it must focus on faith in the one who makes the promise rather then understanding how it is possible. I am thinking here of Abraham and the Abrahamic covenant where Abram belived God (dispite the fact he couldn't belive he could have a son) because the one who made the promise was faithfull. This is true with regards to history, yes even redemptive history must focus on the one who is speaking through the wittnesses of Scripture, dispite the fact that it is inconcievable to our natural minds. That is why our common (koine) faith is what binds us, not our systematic theology on extraneous issues like primordial historicity.

Merry Christmas everyone,
Mark

P.S. For the use of the expression 'common faith' check out the opening verses of Jude. Notice that fighting for the faith does not include questionable intellectual concepts.

 

[TwinCrier]

Don't forget Theistic Evolution. Like it or not, it still falls under Creation.

No, I believe theistic evolution would still be considered evolution. If not, we may have to revise the title of this forum.

 

[keyarch]

I thought I was responding to Dracil. Sorry.

 

[Dracil]

No, I believe theistic evolution would still be considered evolution. If not, we may have to revise the title of this forum.

The title of this forum is Creationism, not Creation.

Theistic Evolution is still considered Creation. It is not Creationism

Or to make the distinction even clearer.

Both Theistic Evoloution and Creationism are under a bigger heading of Creation. Just like Dogs and Cats are under the bigger heading of Animals.

 

[Dracil]

In a 'TE' model, could you clarify for us just what God created; when; and how it fits with scripture (verses are helpful).

Generally speaking, God created everything, and the how is what we are currently discovering in science. Or in other words, God created, and evolution was one of the mechanisms through which God created. However, the exact specifics can actually vary from person to person. I would suggest asking this in the Origins Theology though, because there are some in this forum who would rather us TE not post in here.

 

[keyarch]

Generally speaking, God created everything, and the how is what we are currently discovering in science. Or in other words, God created, and evolution was one of the mechanisms through which God created. However, the exact specifics can actually vary from person to person. I would suggest asking this in the Origins Theology though, because there are some in this forum who would rather us TE not post in here.

I was asking you, because you’re the one that said

“

Don't forget Theistic Evolution. Like it or not, it still falls under Creation.”.

So you infer that God created everything, and that’s why TE falls under “creation”. But then you go on to say that He created through evolution. Does that mean that you believe God created the first one celled organism some 4.5 billion years ago and then evolution took over to develop all the other organisms that have ever existed? If so, that would answer the first two parts of my question to you, but not the third – “how it fits with scripture (verses are helpful)”.

The topic of this thread is “Various Creation Theories”, so I’m just curious about how your theory actually fits in this category from your understanding. I already know the general aspects of the theory don’t need to be directed to another thread or site.

 

[Dracil]

I was asking you, because you’re the one that said So you infer that God created everything, and that’s why TE falls under “creation”. But then you go on to say that He created through evolution. Does that mean that you believe God created the first one celled organism some 4.5 billion years ago and then evolution took over to develop all the other organisms that have ever existed? If so, that would answer the first two parts of my question to you, but not the third – “how it fits with scripture (verses are helpful)”.

The topic of this thread is “Various Creation Theories”, so I’m just curious about how your theory actually fits in this category from your understanding. I already know the general aspects of the theory don’t need to be directed to another thread or site.

And like I said, ask this in Origins forum, or people here will find some way to claim "debating" here, and I can do without that sort of trouble. Soon as you do so, you can get a fuller answer from me. But a short answer is that your first part is almost similar to what I believe. Although it depends on what you mean by "God created the first one celled organism." If you mean God "poofed" the organism into existence on Earth, then no. If you mean, the organism came to be as a result of God's hand in the creation of the rest of the universe, as well as its laws and its nature, and that the existence of this organism coming into being was an intended consequence of God, although it cannot be measured as such by any means from within the universe, then yes. As for scriptural fitting. Here's an example, the death mentioned was not that of a physical death, but of a spiritual death. Depending on how you take that statement, it will be a good guage of how receptive you will be to the rest of what I have to say. *shrug*

BTW, I say this with the dual agenda of trying to get people to go outside [this forum] more.

 

[TwinCrier]

Rules of this forum:

1. Only Creationist members may debate in this forum.

2. Non-creationist members may post fellowship posts in this forum but any debate posts will be removed.

 

[Dracil]

Rules of this forum:

1. Only Creationist members may debate in this forum.

2. Non-creationist members may post fellowship posts in this forum but any debate posts will be removed.

To keyarch: See what I meant? Right on cue! Thanks TwinCrier!

So I'll see you in the Origins forum, if you're truly interested in what I have to say.

 

[herev]

[move][sign]Mod Hat On[/sign][/move]
Dracil, while I appreciate your attempt in your first post here to refrain from debating, you are skirting awfully close to the line. Please refrain from debates. If you cannot stand the temptations, I suggest you pick up some casual reading elsewhere.
As to the rest of you and the rest of his posts...If you don't want him debating here, don't ask him questions!!!! The other posts here, he was dragged into it and he simply responded, each time asking that you take the question to the Origins Theology forum! If you don't want him here, don't ask him questions to respond to!!



[move][sign]Mod Hat Off[/sign][/move]

 

[MLML]

Dracil, while I appreciate your attempt in your first post here to refrain from debating, you are skirting awfully close to the line. Please refrain from debates. If you cannot stand the temptations, I suggest you pick up some casual reading elsewhere.
As to the rest of you and the rest of his posts...If you don't want him debating here, don't ask him questions!!!! The other posts here, he was dragged into it and he simply responded, each time asking that you take the question to the Origins Theology forum! If you don't want him here, don't ask him questions to respond to!!

With all due respect, your bias towards Dracil, and against yec-ists is very apparent here in your statement. You conclude by telling others here to not ask questions of Dracil so he won't debate. Are these questions making him debate? Or could he possible show some self control and restrain from debating in an area that asks politely for him not to.

There are statements made in the te-ist only area that I would make comments about, but I have not, nor has other yec-ists in that only forum. One can notice how many times a thread has been locked, or commented on by a mod, in the yec-ist only forum, because a te-ist cannot show self control.

I am aware and appreciative that you corrected him, but your follow up paragraph shows your bias as a moderator.

 

[herev]

With all due respect, your bias towards Dracil, and against yec-ists is very apparent here in your statement. You conclude by telling others here to not ask questions of Dracil so he won't debate. Are these questions making him debate? Or could he possible show some self control and restrain from debating in an area that asks politely for him not to.

You know MLML, everyone thinks the mod is biased--and against them. YEC's think I moderate biased against them because I'm a TE. TE's think I'm biased against them becasue I'm overcompensating for being a TE. I told Dracil to quite debating, but if you review the posts, you will find one specifically says to him, I was asking "you." If they (or you) don't want him debating here, don't ask for his opinion. That's all I meant and I stand by it.

There are statements made in the te-ist only area that I would make comments about, but I have not, nor has other yec-ists in that only forum.

You are absolutely correct. Typically the YEC's are much more respectful of that forum, hence I've rarely had to take action over there. Hence all the more reason why I should wonder why you think I'm biased when I am attempting to STOP it from happening in your forum.

One can notice how many times a thread has been locked, or commented on by a mod, in the yec-ist only forum, because a te-ist cannot show self control.

again, agreed.

I am aware and appreciative that you corrected him,

it doesn't appear you are appreciative at all

but your follow up paragraph shows your bias as a moderator.

In my opinion it does no such thing. I am trying very hard to keep your area clean, but I could use the help of everyone here by NOT debating TE's when they come in and NOT asking them questions to respond to only to then turn around an report their answer.
If you feel I'm being biased, report it!! My superiors are:
ps139
Nehemiah_Center
Caedmon

Above them are:
WesleyJohn
boughtwithaprice

and then above them is
AngelAmidala

I do the best I can with what I've got to work with
I have made it my number one priority since being assigned to this forum to keep the creationism forum free for you guys to have and do with as you wish. I have posted warning after warning. Ask some TE's. Maybe they'll tell you what has gone on behind the scenes since I'm not allowed to discuss specific moderator actions against members. Please do not post publicly about my actions again as this would force me to clean it up for a Rule 7 violation. As I said, if you think it needs to be addressed, report it to my superiors--they are always open to listening and to assisting others.

 

[keyarch]

Hello everyone, I was just thinking about various Creation theories. What do you guys think about The Hydro Plate theory? How about the Hovind theory? I mean do we really have evidence that the Earth used to be at a different axis? Does anyone have extra info about this (web sites, books etc.)? How about the canopy theory? whats your take on this? was there one was there not one why, why not? I really havent made up my mind about the canopy, and according to the Hovind theory, there really isnt need of one, Then again Walt Browns book in the beginning he gives reasons why there probably wasnt a canopy. What are your thoughts on this? Any good references I should check out? Thanks for your help!

I’m guessing that your Creation theory question has more to do with the global flood than the creation week, so I’ll put forth my view on the flood model.

1. I don’t think the “waters” above were much different than today, although there may have been enough to make a more tropical environment for most of the earth. Some take the following passage to mean that there was no rain on the earth before the flood, but I interpret it to be part of an explanation of the state the earth was in at a specific point during the creation week and nothing more.
Gen 2:5-6 “….for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.”

2. The Hydro Plate theory may include things like “mountain building” that may be stretching it. Generally, the fountains of the deep opened up (mid-ocean ridges) producing the heat and steam that resulted in the precipitation for 40 days and nights. I think any serious study of the earth will reveal that there is a great quantity of water below the crust that could have burst forth and fountains sealed. Then after approximately a year the water went back thru subduction zones into the lithosphere. The sea level before the flood was lower than today because not all the water went back down and because there are more sediments from the continents that have displaced the water.

3. I don’t think the earth axis is an issue one way or another, and I haven’t seen any definitive information on magnetic pole shifts and the metallic orientations on the sides of the mid-ocean ridges. A lot of theories exist, but I haven’t seen any real mapping that demonstrates the patterns that would be generated for those theories to be substantiated.

4. The ice age is a byproduct of the change in climate resulting from the flood and water temperatures and probably continuing volcanism. It is estimated that this ice age occurred within 500 years after the flood and covered a significantly larger area than today. I think that the “global warming” issue is a farce and that the receding ice caps are due to a normal leveling out of the climate back to the state it was prior to the flood.

5. I think the longer life spans within the first couple thousands years had more to do with genetics rather than environment. No amount of control of harmful effects or perfect diet is going to help someone to live over 200 years, much less 900.

6. Regarding my position on “Creation”, it’s YBC (old universe & core earth, young biological creation 6kya). A narrative of Genesis 1 is at: http://www.genesistruth.org/Genesisday1_4.htm

Please keep in mind; the above statements are from my interpretations.

 

[TwinCrier]

With all due respect, your bias towards Dracil, and against yec-ists is very apparent here in your statement. You conclude by telling others here to not ask questions of Dracil so he won't debate. Are these questions making him debate? Or could he possible show some self control and restrain from debating in an area that asks politely for him not to.

There are statements made in the te-ist only area that I would make comments about, but I have not, nor has other yec-ists in that only forum. One can notice how many times a thread has been locked, or commented on by a mod, in the yec-ist only forum, because a te-ist cannot show self control.

I am aware and appreciative that you corrected him, but your follow up paragraph shows your bias as a moderator.

It would be nice if some of the YEC moderators assigned to this forum would take some type of active roll here.