What is a Creationist?

i am a YEC literalist, and i think that should be the definition of "creationist" for this forum.

i dont yet understand the different between TE and OEC. i dont consider either of them to be "literal".

SIXDAYCREATIONIST said:

one of my friends calls it "Intelligent Design Theory" and i have to say that i like that name better. so when people ask me if i am a creationist i say, no, i am an intelligent design theorist.

Click to expand...

Haha, that is so me. Yes I coined the term "Intelligent Design Theorist." As for other people calling themselves that, people could technically call themselves Creationists, but they aren't. My point is simple, the earth is young, made in 6 days, and the Bible is accurate. That is an Intelligent Design Theorist.

tk

LynneClomina said:

i am a YEC literalist, and i think that should be the definition of "creationist" for this forum.

i dont yet understand the different between TE and OEC. i dont consider either of them to be "literal".

Click to expand...

Let me help you there. OECs do not believe that biodiversity is the result of evolution. TEs do.

LynneClomina said:

i am a YEC literalist, and i think that should be the definition of "creationist" for this forum.

i dont yet understand the different between TE and OEC. i dont consider either of them to be "literal".

Click to expand...

OECs believe the Hebrew word used for "day" in Genesis refers to a "period of time of indeterminate length" which it can (and often is) accurately be used to do. Many say that the inclusion of "and the evening and the morning" determines it to be a 24 hour day. Basically, OECs believe it was done exactly as Genesis says, just that instead of six 24 hour days, it was 6 indeterminately long "days."

TEs on the other hand pretty much believe the universe and life occured the same way that athiestic evolutionists do except that God chose that method to bring life into existence. They also do not believe that Adam and Eve were real people, large parts of the Bible are just allegory and that the soul is an emergent property of an advanced brain. Many believe that some animals have rudimentary souls.

tkster said:

Haha, that is so me. Yes I coined the term "Intelligent Design Theorist." As for other people calling themselves that, people could technically call themselves Creationists, but they aren't. My point is simple, the earth is young, made in 6 days, and the Bible is accurate. That is an Intelligent Design Theorist.

tk

Click to expand...

Wait a second here. Are actually claiming to have coined the term "Intelligent Design"?!! I really, really want to know if you think you came up with this term.

I am a tad confused with the Intelligent Design label? I agree that Young Earth Creationism would be a form of Intelligent Design (which I assume means that the Earth was designed and did not just randomly come into existance?), but I don't think the two are equal. Old Earth Creationism, Gap Theory, and I'd say most forms of Theistic Evolution could also be classed as Intelligent Design .

forgivensinner001 said:

TEs on the other hand pretty much believe the universe and life occured the same way that athiestic evolutionists do except that God chose that method to bring life into existence. They also do not believe that Adam and Eve were real people,

Click to expand...

There are TE's that believe Adam and Eve were real people. It is pretty clear from the Bible that they were. The genologys are in the NT.

JohnR7 said:

There are TE's that believe Adam and Eve were real people. It is pretty clear from the Bible that they were. The genologys are in the NT.

Click to expand...

But most TEs don't interpret the Bible literally and take the majority of Genesis as allegory and don't believe that Adam and Eve were real. I'm sure some do believe they were but most TEs I've talked with don't.

Also, my definition of OEC would include a "TE" who believes that all life evolved, then God created man specially rather than letting him evolve from lower primates. I guess a lot of it depends on how you define the terms. Technically TEs are Creationists as they believe God created the universe. They just believe he used a more leisurely pace and process than YECs.

JohnR7 said:

There are TE's that believe Adam and Eve were real people. It is pretty clear from the Bible that they were. The genologys are in the NT.

Click to expand...

Here's one

Vance said:

Wait a second here. Are actually claiming to have coined the term "Intelligent Design"?!! I really, really want to know if you think you came up with this term.

Click to expand...

Just like Al Gore created the internet

As a Creationist I believe that the Gospel is inextricably linked to the creation of the world in six literal days by the speaking of words. That the divine attributes and eternal nature of God are both evident and obvious to every human being, since it is reflected in nature, leaving us without an excuse. I believe that nothing in the natural sciences offers anything that can contradict this and welcome any invitation to explore the workings of the natural world as an expression of faith.

I believe that the Bible is the sacred, undiluted, immutable Word of God and that the special creation and divine providence of Holy God is evident in the created universe.

forgivensinner001 said:

But most TEs don't interpret the Bible literally and take the majority of Genesis as allegory and don't believe that Adam and Eve were real.

Click to expand...

If they do not believe that Adam and Eve were real people that lived about 6000 years ago, then they do not know their Bible. How can they understand God's plan of redemption if they do not understand the work God did when He created Adam and Eve and placed them in the Garden of Eden?

herev said:

Here's one

Click to expand...

Do you believe that God literally created Adam from dust and breathed life into him or that Adam evolved from lower forms? I would have no problem accepting that God used evolution as a means for the earth to "bring forth" life. It would make me uncomfortable, however, to think that Adam was just an intelligent ape whose soul had developed over time as his brain became more advanced.

How do you believe Adam was created? Did God create him specially or did He pick a primate and insert a soul or did He decide one day that this hominid was advanced enough to be called man? Or is there another option.

I hope this doesn't sound argumentative, I'd really like to hear what you believe, I'm just running late for work and don't have time to word it carefully.

forgivensinner001 said:

Do you believe that God literally created Adam from dust and breathed life into him or that Adam evolved from lower forms?

Click to expand...

I believe in Theistic Evolution, so I believe that God used evolution to get the life form that is human. I believe that the first humans (those with the capability to comprehend God) were Adam and Eve.

forgivensinner001 said:

I would have no problem accepting that God used evolution as a means for the earth to "bring forth" life.

Click to expand...

good

forgivensinner001 said:

It would make me uncomfortable, however, to think that Adam was just an intelligent ape whose soul had developed over time as his brain became more advanced.

Click to expand...

That's not exactly what I believe, but I understand what your saying and accept your beliefs. They are, however, different (only slightly) from mine.

forgivensinner001 said:

How do you believe Adam was created?

Click to expand...

see above

forgivensinner001 said:

Did God create him specially

Click to expand...

Well, yes--but I think He used evolution to do so.

forgivensinner001 said:

or did He pick a primate and insert a soul

Click to expand...

Nah, that would be silly, to think God would play a game akin to pin the tail on the donkey.

forgivensinner001 said:

or did He decide one day that this hominid was advanced enough to be called man?

Click to expand...

That's my take on it. Though as a TE, I believe he didn't merely "decide" one day--he had a plan--from the very beginning--and knew when that day would be that Adam had arrived.

forgivensinner001 said:

Or is there another option.

Click to expand...

I'm sure there are many other options .

forgivensinner001 said:

I hope this doesn't sound argumentative, I'd really like to hear what you believe, I'm just running late for work and don't have time to word it carefully.

Click to expand...

No problem, have a good day.
Tommy

Creationism: Holding to the principles of the non-evolving Word of God.

The Word is my rock. There are biblical issues addressed that by my very nature I will resist. The book of James does nothing for my ego. The moral standards set forth by The Creator does nothing to appease persecution living within a society based on ever-increasing tolerance levels.
We speak of mutations either losing information to create something not quite the same as the original or a gain of information to create another kind of creature, a class unto itself, that no longer resembles the original. There are many that choose to place options within the Word of God creating an allowance to pick and choose to satisfy a desire or hunger. I pay my one time fee, grab a plate, look over the food that's on display and choose what I feel my diet requires or what tastes good abandoning nutrition in favor of what pleases the palate.
There are religions that tote the bible as scripture but make additions such as another gospel to evolve into another kind or type of belief system unalike the original. There are religions that completely ignore information evolving into a belief system that no longer recognises the birth of Christ as a glorious event.

I'm very familiar with a religion that chooses the option not to take the following verses literally.

|v1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
|v2 The same was in the beginning with God.
(NewT:John 1:1-2)

By a single option Jesus is degraded from God to a personage unto His own. A very fundemental and essential attribute of Jesus's diety is cast out and ignored as fallacy. By one option to ignore the redeemptive grace of Jesus Christ a belief system becomes works-oriented or man-centered instead of Christ-centered. The option to take only a part of truth, loss of information, to make it easier to swallow instead of the full dose does the body little good.

The tolerance to accept one option makes it easier to accept another. Through option and choice the mutation of God's Word becomes less than the original or something that no longer resembles that from which it came.

"and the Word was God"
And He is my Rock. The Word is my foundation.

I tend to be a creationist who is undecided on the age of the earth. I could go either way on YEC vs OEC. Am I allowed here?

cajunhillbilly said:

I tend to be a creationist who is undecided on the age of the earth. I could go either way on YEC vs OEC. Am I allowed here?

Click to expand...

You are welcome here cajunhillbilly. You are a creationist, hence this is your forum too!

Those who disgree are also welcome to post, but must be respectful of the general consensus here, and not debate in favour of evolution.

If anyone wants to do that, there are other places on CF to do so, and we can all interact there.

Blessings, Susana

herev said:

I believe in Theistic Evolution, so I believe that God used evolution to get the life form that is human. I believe that the first humans (those with the capability to comprehend God) were Adam and Eve.

Click to expand...

I find this theory interesting.
It doesn't get mentioned often; do you think many hold it?

It's an attractive idea in some ways, but means Adam and Eve must have been born and raised by soul-less, sub-human beasts.
The "yuk" factor gets to me here!

Upon finding themselves to be the only two beings with a spirit in touch with God, radically different from their parents, siblings, society in general, they must have had a tough time. Maybe they even had to leave all they knew.

I can't make it work out somehow. I don't want to start a debate - I just realised I might well be doing so!

Should I start a new thread, and if so where?
Then will someone then say I can't lift a comment out of here and put it into a debate elsewhere?


God bless, Susana