Why do creationists insist that the theory of evolution is inherently atheistic?

[AV1611VET]

You don't mean it's more allegorical than exact do you?

No.

 

[ChristianT]

The Bible actually states the creationist position.

Which position?

 

[AV1611VET]

That was the point I was making. KWC said it was explained "exactly".

Genesis 1 gives us what was done, how it was done, when it was done, where it was done, Who did it, what order it was done in, and how long it took to do it.

Anything more than what Genesis 1 gives you is too much information.

 

[MrsLurking]

I'm familiar with the Garden of Eden being devoid of plant life (on purpose, I might add), and have said so before; but Eden itself (or Pangaea for those who like to speak in tongues), was created fully-mature in a moment of time.

The Garden of Eden was hypergrown just before God placed Adam in it to be married.

Seeing how the Bible makes no such claims, I was wondering how you came to imagine such things. But now that I see that you associate such ideas with the ecstatic utterances of tongues-speaking, I can see how you came up with this stuff.

If you don't understand it, it's not my problem.

It is only a problem if you wish to be understood. You've answered my question by emphasizing that your theories come from tongue-speaking incidents about Pangaea. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[ChristianT]

Genesis 1 gives us what was done, how it was done, when it was done, where it was done, Who did it, what order it was done in, and how long it took to do it.

Anything more than what Genesis 1 gives you is too much information.

When was it done, according to the text, and how do you know when that was?

 

[MrsLurking]

The Bible actually states the creationist position.

Which one?


(Indeed, even young earth creationists disagree wildly on countless issues surrounding origins and even on the correct interpretations of Genesis 1 and 2. I was raised in a young earth creationist church so I know a lot about the disagreements.)

 

[mathetes123]

Which one?

6 literal days of creation, just like it says.

 

[AV1611VET]

Seeing how the Bible makes no such claims,

You might want to try reading It again then. Just the first two chapters will suffice.

 

[AV1611VET]

When was it done, according to the text, and how do you know when that was?

I'm not sure what you're asking. It doesn't look like a proper sentence to me.

If you're asking me when it was done, the Bible says when it was done.

Genesis 1:1a In the beginning...

Anything more is too much information.

 

[ChristianT]

I'm not sure what you're asking. It doesn't look like a proper sentence to me.

If you're asking me when it was done, the Bible says when it was done.

Genesis 1:1a In the beginning...

Anything more is too much information.

And for the second part, clause II. How do you know when the beginning was?

 

[AV1611VET]

I was raised in a young earth creationist church so I know a lot about the disagreements.

You might want to fill your husband in on them then.

He's been starting fly-by threads asking question after question after question about what they believe.

Either that, or he's hiding behind question marks just to ridicule them.

 

[AV1611VET]

And for the second part, clause II. How do you know when the beginning was?

I go with Ussher's calculations, i.e. 4004 BC.

 

[MrsLurking]

Genesis 1 gives us what was done, how it was done, when it was done, where it was done, Who did it, what order it was done in, and how long it took to do it.

At best, Genesis 1 may provide an order in which God COMMANDED the creation of various things. God provides lots of details about the OVERLAPPING origins of geological and biological events on earth. (Or aren't you interested in what God's answers so abundantly provided in his creation? Oh that's right, you are one of those who believes that a deity planted lots of deceptive stories in his creation, misleading histories which never happened. No, I greatly prefer the God of the Bible, the Holy YHWH who created all things.)

Of course, the Bible says NOTHING about WHEN God created the universe. We are only told that it was "in the beginning" when everything began.

Genesis can certainly be understood to say that God gave the orders for creation over the course of SIX YOM. But the Bible tells us NOTHING about the actual period of time involved in those FULFILLMENT of those creative utterances.

In reading the Bible, it is important to not only determine what it SAYS,. We must also carefully inspect WHAT IT DOESN'T SAY! And the latter is a major pitfall into which God's people have so often fallen---and usually the culprit behind those massive errors in Bible interpretation are CHERISHED MAN-MADE TRADITIONS (e.g. embedded age.)

We do well to avoid the tendencies of first-century Pharisees as well as those of our present day who (1) assign the creations of God to Satan instead [e.g. evolutionary processes] and who (2) demand that we replace the scriptures with their favorite traditions ABOUT the scriptures. But such hecklers will always be the tares among the wheat, the sheep among the goats. They will be separated out in the last judgment.

 

[MrsLurking]

6 literal days of creation, just like it says.

Six literal YOM, just like it says.

So explain to us why so many young earth creationist and old earth creationists revere the inerrant scriptures and both groups consider Genesis 1 a text to be interpreted literally---and yet they pose very different interpretations and theories.

Please answer the question. Quit dodging it and hoping that nobody notices your bob and weave.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Genesis 1 gives us what was done, how it was done, when it was done, where it was done, Who did it, what order it was done in, and how long it took to do it.

Anything more than what Genesis 1 gives you is too much information.

On the contrary, from the amount of debate it would seem the author erred on the side of too little information.

Incidentally, 'too much information' is a conversational phrase usually used in response to information that is too graphically vulgar or disgusting. When used in reference to the writing of Genesis it certainly raises some interesting questions.

 

[Catherineanne]

Well said!

Yes, the claim via the "embedded age" theory that God is a prankster at best and a manipulative deceiver at worst is not in harmony with the YHWH of the Bible.

It well illustrates the risks of TRADITION becoming more important in the Church than what the Bible actually states.

Actually that was not really my point. That is a completely separate issue. Tradition as my own church means it cannot contradict Scripture, nor can Scripture contradict Tradition; Scripture, Tradition and Reason form the three constructs upon which Anglicanism is founded. However, as I said, that is another discussion.

As I have said elsewhere, the main problem as I see it is regarding the Bible as something other than what it actually claims to be.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I go with Ussher's calculations, i.e. 4004 BC.

In other words AVET prefers to use the worst possible "evidence" ( I do not even like calling stories from a book of myth evidence at all ) for his beliefs.


He continually shows that he either believes that all scientists from Newton on were wrong or that he believes in a God that lies. He seems to vary a bit in his belief, though most of the time he does declare that his God is not honest.

 

[MrsLurking]

You might want to fill your husband in on them then.

Your obsessions with my husband's posts are of no interest to me. Why not put some energy into finding Biblical and material evidence (i.e., scientific evidence) which might suggest that your opinions have merit? (Oh, I just remembered. You are the guy whose slogan is "evidence can take a hike." That explains a lot . Never mind.)

 

[AV1611VET]

On the contrary, from the amount of debate it would seem the author erred on the side of too little information.

It only seems that way to those who demand more.

Incidentally, 'too much information' is a conversational phrase usually used in response to information that is too graphically vulgar or disgusting.

I'm well-familiar with the phrase 'too much information,' having had a TOP SECRET clearance in Naval communications.

Limited Distribution (LIMDIS), For Your Eyes Only (FYEO), and Special Category (SPECAT) routings are examples of making sure one has a need to know; and I can assure you, there's nothing 'vulgar' about them.

In relation to Genesis it certainly raises some interesting questions.

Genesis 1 wasn't written so "scientists" could scratch themselves blind wondering what happened.

 

[MrsLurking]

The Bible actually states the creationist position.

Obviously, all Christians agree that God created everything. Do we really have to clarify the TWO MEANINGS of the term "creationist" before you play equivocation fallacy games with the term. All Christians are "creationists" in terms of the religious studies definitioin----but not all Christians are creationists in the popular reference to young earth creationists (who believe in a 6,000 year old earth, special creation of all life "kinds", and a global Noahic flood.)

To claim even that all young earth creationist hold the same interpretations of Genesis 1 and 2 is a breech of the Ninth Commandment.