Young Earth Creation as opposed to Old Earth Creation (aka evolution lite)

Smidlee · Jul 4, 2012

mark kennedy said:
The whole thing is upside down, young earth creationists must believe in accelerated evolution. It would have had to happen a rapidity that would have scared Darwin to death.

I have to disagree as I believe God has never got out of the creation business. If so then all of the animals today didn't have to come from the Ark. (You could be right that all animals did yet not necessary)
Evolution has no real engine so to me seems totally meaningless since it fails to explain "how?".

samaus12345 · Jul 4, 2012

If ANYONE read origin of species it *should* destroy anyones faith in this myth. It is free PDF download on google.

Smidlee · Jul 4, 2012

Most don't recommend reading Origin of the Species since Darwin was wrong on almost all of his point. (unlike Paley, time has only strengthen his point) The only thing he was right about was natural selection which has be shown to be very limited.

samaus12345 · Jul 4, 2012

Yah Edward Blyth (creationist) was on to selection before him. So you still believe "evolution" despite realising its cornerstone doctrine (origin of species) is baseless?

Keachian · Jul 4, 2012

I think this thread needs a bit of this video:

Potholer and Hovind Come Together (Not like that!) - YouTube

samaus12345 · Jul 4, 2012

Seen it, sent potholer message asking for literature like 1-2 months ago when i was starting to realise this was the biggest delusion/myth in documented history. He didnt respond.

Keachian · Jul 4, 2012

jinx25 said:
Seen it, sent potholer message asking for literature like 1-2 months ago when i was starting to realise this was the biggest delusion/myth in documented history. He didnt respond.

So Hovind is wrong?

samaus12345 · Jul 4, 2012

Oh you say in your own words what the contention is.

samaus12345 · Jul 4, 2012

Btw Hovind offered to debate Stephen Hawing, Stephen J gould (dead now), Dawkins (i could debate him or a 5 year old could ahhh sir how do you go from non living material to life? Well abiogenesis isnt evolution!!!! Ok, sure one single mutation in the genome of anything that adds 1 new novel function.... (17 second pause)"theres a common misunderstanding about evolution that says......." Uni students got up $900 bucks for one of there professors to debate Hovind on his own campus and he declined. Creation.com sent a message to the atheist convention in Melbourne one year asking "We will fly down there 3 of our guys vs 3 of yours PPPPLLLEEAASSEEE put Richard Dawkins on your team".... the atheists declined....

Keachian · Jul 4, 2012

The contention is that Creationists who mirror Hovind, and others in the video, accept what you call fairy tales.

samaus12345 · Jul 4, 2012

The scientific contention?

Keachian · Jul 4, 2012

jinx25 said:
Btw Hovind offered to debate Stephen Hawing, Stephen J gould (dead now), Dawkins (i could debate him or a 5 year old could ahhh sir how do you go from non living material to life? Well abiogenesis isnt evolution!!!! Ok, sure one single mutation in the genome of anything that adds 1 new novel function.... (17 second pause)"theres a common misunderstanding about evolution that says......." Uni students got up $900 bucks for one of there professors to debate Hovind on his own campus and he declined. Creation.com sent a message to the atheist convention in Melbourne one year asking "We will fly down there 3 of our guys vs 3 of yours PPPPLLLEEAASSEEE put Richard Dawkins on your team".... the atheists declined....

Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be d wise in his own eyes.

I think I'm done talking to you on creation theology and bibliology

samaus12345 · Jul 4, 2012

Which side are you representing Atheism/bible?

Keachian · Jul 4, 2012

That fact should be clear from my faith icon, how dare you accuse me of being an atheist! Are you seeking to divide the body of Christ? I have seen no love in your posts to me, only baseless accusations of me believing fairy tales, and now an accusation of being not a Christian. And while I will not stoop to your level I do ask that you reconsider your actions upon this forum for while I can see a lot of zeal in your posts, I do not think that your abrasiveness is that beneficial to the defense of your faith and will probably turn more seekers away from Christ than draw them to him.

mark kennedy · Jul 4, 2012

PartyAnimal said:
Scathing indictment? Here I thought I was just giving my opinion. You win mate, I'm a closet Atheist. I must be since I hold an Atheistic position which evolution definitely is. No really, it is.

Your coming in here talking about all the harm Creationists are doing and not a single word against the atheists who are perpetrating the creation/evolution controversy in the first place. What I said was Darwinism is the a priori (without prior) assumption of exclusively naturalistic causes. Before you start turning this into a personal indictment I think you should acknowledge that fact.

progmonk said:
That fact should be clear from my faith icon, how dare you accuse me of being an atheist! Are you seeking to divide the body of Christ? I have seen no love in your posts to me, only baseless accusations of me believing fairy tales, and now an accusation of being not a Christian. And while I will not stoop to your level I do ask that you reconsider your actions upon this forum for while I can see a lot of zeal in your posts, I do not think that your abrasiveness is that beneficial to the defense of your faith and will probably turn more seekers away from Christ than draw them to him.

What turns them away is the constant attack on a belief in God as Creator, you should accept some responsibility for this. The words being used in these discussion are invariable loaded with multiple meanings, aka evolution, science, atheism and creationism. The fact is we all do it and we are all responsible for poisoning the well for anyone taking an interest in the subject. Jinx25 is new to all of this and clearly considers Darwinism to be atheistic, so do I. The difference is that he has failed to realize that we are talking about different things, on different levels and lumping them all in together is reckless. He didn't come into the theistic evolution forum throwing highly provocative accusations around looking for an argument. Theistic evolutionists come in here, invariably making emotive insinuations dragging everything down to an intellectual thee stooges routine.

I have interacted with a lot of Creationists the quit posting here because they are immediately attacked on a personal level and constantly hounded as long as the continue to post. I blame the evolutionists for this, my only problem with Jinx25 is that he played right into that rhetorical trap where everything is dragged into the trenches.

mark kennedy · Jul 4, 2012

Smidlee said:
I have to disagree as I believe God has never got out of the creation business. If so then all of the animals today didn't have to come from the Ark. (You could be right that all animals did yet not necessary)
Evolution has no real engine so to me seems totally meaningless since it fails to explain "how?".

What you are calling evolution is actually adaptation, there are molecular mechanisms that facilitate this process. The thing is, the genomes of the respective generations do not have to change dramatically. In fact, there are a host of molecular mechanisms that have the sole purpose of preserving the genome through meticulous quality control standards.

The molecular mechanisms needed for macro-evolution on a species level exist, I know that because they must exist. There is even an arctic fish that evolved a brand new gene that produces a protein that keeps them from freezing in the arctic.

I am a young earth creationist and I read Genesis as a literal, historical narrative. I take the early chapters of Genesis quite literally and if they are reflecting a timeline anything close to what I am reading evolution (adaptation) happened and is happening on a macro scale based on preloaded molecular mechanisms that are not subject to change.

I still think that it is the young earth creationist that must believe in radical adaptive evolution while the Darwinian has all the time in the world, literally.

mark kennedy · Jul 4, 2012

jinx25 said:
If ANYONE read origin of species it *should* destroy anyones faith in this myth. It is free PDF download on google.

I have read it and natural selection is really just a naturalistic assumption. What Darwin discussed in the chapters never went beyond the species level, perhaps as high as genus but that is about it. It's one of the illusions of inductive reasoning but getting back to my point. Based on those slight, slow, successive changes, he projects that all species have evolved in a constant progression throughout natural history going all the way back to the primaeval origins of life.

Indeed, Darwin was a mythographer just like his grandfather:

Organic life beneath the shoreless waves
Was born and nurs'd in ocean's pearly caves;
First forms minute, unseen by spheric glass,
Move on the mud, or pierce the watery mass;
These, as successive generations bloom,
New powers acquire and larger limbs assume;
Whence countless groups of vegetation spring,
And breathing realms of fin and feet and wing.

Erasmus Darwin. The Temple of Nature. 1802.

That is Darwinism, that is the pagan myth that rejects God as Creator. I am seriously wondering what the difference between that myth and the modern myths of natural history really are. Theistic evolutionists are clearly being taken in by an atheistic philosophy that rejects God as the cause of anything, ever, even as a passive designer. They are not the enemy, they are victims of a bait and switch tactic thinking their attacks on Creationism will bring credibility to Christian theism. They are wrong. The evolutionists on here are not arguing for anything, certainly not anything theistic. They are arguing against Creationism, which is nothing more then a belief in God as Creator.

What is important to realize here is the God's natural revelation reaches everyone:

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. (Rom 1:20,21)

Let me ask you a serious theological question, who is the Apostle Paul referring to when he says, 'their foolish heart was darkened'? I assume you read the Bible, I'm asking you to read this passage in the context of Romans 1 and tell me who's pedigree the Apostle is reading. I'll give you a hint, Proverbs 1 discusses the foolish and the wise. When you read Proverbs 1 who do you think the fools are?

Grace and peace,
Mark

Metal Minister · Jul 4, 2012

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFx7YX9dlBc&feature=youtube_gdata_player

I found this on YouTube from Robert Gentry. It's quite good and features some incredibly beautiful photos of our universe!

May God Richly Bless You! MM

*addendum*
I do not agree with all the points in Gentry's video (st the end he talks of a creation before Genesis) but the ideas he posits are intriguing.

Keachian · Jul 4, 2012

mark kennedy said:
What turns them away is the constant attack on a belief in God as Creator, you should accept some responsibility for this.

I fundamentally disagree, if we are not Christ-like in our actions then people are far more likely to be turned off.

The words being used in these discussion are invariable loaded with multiple meanings, aka evolution, science, atheism and creationism. The fact is we all do it and we are all responsible for poisoning the well for anyone taking an interest in the subject.

Yep.

Jinx25 is new to all of this and clearly considers Darwinism to be atheistic, so do I.

Well then both you and Jinx are conflating Darwinism with evolution, I do not call myself a darwinist, but an evolutionist.

The difference is that he has failed to realize that we are talking about different things, on different levels and lumping them all in together is reckless. He didn't come into the theistic evolution forum throwing highly provocative accusations around looking for an argument.

I'm not just talking about his actions here in this thread but throughout the whole of the Origins Theology forum.

Theistic evolutionists come in here, invariably making emotive insinuations dragging everything down to an intellectual thee stooges routine.

I have been having quite an amicable discussion about the theological side of this debate with the OP, yes looking back I was in the wrong on the last exchange in this.

I have interacted with a lot of Creationists the quit posting here because they are immediately attacked on a personal level and constantly hounded as long as the continue to post. I blame the evolutionists for this, my only problem with Jinx25 is that he played right into that rhetorical trap where everything is dragged into the trenches.

I was not trying to trap him, I probably should have lived up to my word and not responded to him, but I also didn't ask him to accuse me of not having faith.

mark kennedy · Jul 4, 2012

progmonk said:
I fundamentally disagree, if we are not Christ-like in our actions then people are far more likely to be turned off.

So being tenaciously derogatory toward people who take God's word literally is now Christ-like? It would not be so bad if it were not so constant and like I have said before, the reason Creationists leave this forum is the constant personal attacks.

Well then both you and Jinx are conflating Darwinism with evolution, I do not call myself a darwinist, but an evolutionist.

It does not matter what word you use as much as what you mean by them. The subject matter is inherently philosophical and as such, working definitions are in order. Define your terms and this confusion can end, continue to throw them around loosely and it's a formula for division and contention. I have never conflated Darwinism with evolution and I have explicit definitions for those terms that make clear distinctions. Where are yours?

I'm not just talking about his actions here in this thread but throughout the whole of the Origins Theology forum.

Then address the actions, issues and principles. In the end all we have is the substance of faith. Since the object of my faith is Christ alone then it is the Holy Spirit who tells me I'm a Christian, not you. I have been called a fool, an atheist, liar and worse, man's judgment of me means nothing. I do not even trust my own opinion in that regards, as the Scriptures say, Abraham believed the one who made the promise was faithful. We should do likewise.

I have been having quite an amicable discussion about the theological side of this debate with the OP, yes looking back I was in the wrong on the last exchange in this.

It's all too easy, no one said being a peacemaker was easy, just worth it.

I was not trying to trap him, I probably should have lived up to my word and not responded to him, but I also didn't ask him to accuse me of not having faith.

I moderated the forum for a while and it never failed, creationists and theistic evolutionists did the exact same things. We all do it, the challenge is to raise the level of discussion no matter who the poster is. You can only accomplish and maintain that level of discourse by being committed to principles.

There is a way, I've seen it work. Don't let people drag you down into the trenches, elevate their thinking by affirming the convictions of you beliefs with regards to science and Scripture. Take your stand on the Scriptures as well as the evidence of science and people will respect it, right up until you allow yourself to get dragged into an intellectual three stooges skit. Then, you have no one to blame but yourself.

I trust I'm preaching to the choir, enough said.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Young Earth Creation as opposed to Old Earth Creation (aka evolution lite)

Veteran

Newbie

Veteran

Newbie

On Sabbatical

Newbie

On Sabbatical

Newbie

Newbie

On Sabbatical

Newbie

On Sabbatical

Newbie

On Sabbatical

Natura non facit saltum

Natura non facit saltum

Natura non facit saltum

New Year, Still Old School!

On Sabbatical

Natura non facit saltum

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency