Creationism is not a science and hasn't contributed to science

[Jose Fly]

My point is that evolution can't answer those questions therefore you need to take it on faith.

So you pose a series of questions that have nothing to do with evolution, and conclude that since evolution doesn't answer them, it's all faith?

And you think that makes sense? :think:

 

[jzeidler]

Creationism is not a science and hasn't contributed to science

So you pose a series of questions that have nothing to do with evolution, and conclude that since evolution doesn't answer them, it's all faith?



And you think that makes sense? :think:

Those have everything to do with evolution. It's not my fault you don't understand that. I guess I should t be surprised by this since you don't even understand when you're quote mining.

 

[Interplanner]

Evolution cannot be separated from the classic questions of cosmology and metaphysics, and therefore those questions have to do with evolution. It was imposed by the desires of T. Huxley and other British elites when they realized the depth of the American Revolution was not just military but philosophical, and against centralized (Royal, imperial) government. The only way to fight it after the Revolution was to dismantle the philosophic based by 1000s of reps of pure, naive nonsense in the sciences. That is how we got to the point where people actually believed Obama at Glacier Ice Fields this summer. Bludgeoning by reps.

 

[jzeidler]

Evolution cannot be separated from the classic questions of cosmology and metaphysics, and therefore those questions have to do with evolution. It was imposed by the desires of T. Huxley and other British elites when they realized the depth of the American Revolution was not just military but philosophical, and against centralized (Royal, imperial) government. The only way to fight it after the Revolution was to dismantle the philosophic based by 1000s of reps of pure, naive nonsense in the sciences. That is how we got to the point where people actually believed Obama at Glacier Ice Fields this summer. Bludgeoning by reps.

You're exactly correct.

 

[Jose Fly]

Those have everything to do with evolution.

No they don't.

It's not my fault you don't understand that. I guess I should t be surprised by this since you don't even understand when you're quote mining.

I'm predicting that despite all these accusations of quote mining, not a single person will bother to even try and show where I've done so.

Like I've said....it is impossible to advocate creationism honestly.

 

[Interplanner]

Lyell was a dishonest scientist himself, Jose. He said he was doing what he was doing to get rid of Moses. A very stupid thing to say as a 'scientist' and intellectually dishonest. The overkill of this kind is what has made it almost impossible for people to see the sense and provenance of Gen 1-11.

In the historical and political context of his day, that was his 'war' on the US Constitution, about which the British Empire was scared spitless at that point.

 

[6days]

Evolution is not a big deal one way or the other, I really believe that if it happened, it would need the guiding hand of God. Life is too complex for evolution to be a total explanation of life. There is lots of guess work as to how life begun, but no science to prove it

I with agree...sort of.

Common ancestry would not be a problem for Christians if God had created that way.*

However God did not create through an evolutionary process according to His Word. Trying to squeeze millions of years and common ancestry into the Bible leads to two major problems.
1. Believing in physical death existing before "first Adam" sinned, destroys the gospel and defeats the purpose of "Last Adam" defeating physical death.*

2. Believing that Genesis 1 is allegorical leads young people to a buffet type Christianity, where they pick and choose what to believe from God's Word.*

 

[ok doser]

Evolution by its very nature requires there to be more death, degradation and destruction than improvement in species

I have yet to see a cogent argument that this would be a process deliberately designed by a loving God

 

[Interplanner]

I with agree...sort of.

Common ancestry would not be a problem for Christians if God had created that way.*

However God did not create through an evolutionary process according to His Word. Trying to squeeze millions of years and common ancestry into the Bible leads to two major problems.
1. Believing in physical death existing before "first Adam" sinned, destroys the gospel and defeats the purpose of "Last Adam" defeating physical death.*

2. Believing that Genesis 1 is allegorical leads young people to a buffet type Christianity, where they pick and choose what to believe from God's Word.*

#1 is not true because Adam's sin has to do with those downstream from him. Evil was already in the universe. Adam's sin has to do with the realm or sphere downstream from him.

#2 is quite true. But saying the day might have been the thousand years that several passages allow is not an allegory. An allegory of Gen 1 would be:
'the unformed earth refers to Israel in captivity in Egypt;
the earth after creation refers to Israel in Canaan after the 1st generation;
the 'deep' refers to the Red Sea... etc., ad nauseum.
That's allegory as practiced in medieval theology. Paul did make an allegory out of one incident: the two wives and children of Abraham referred to the Gospel group vs Judaism.

None of the creative acts of God seem to have any time-duration to them. But there might be time between them. And they would not need to have time-duration. See Lewis on the difference between 'natural' and 'supernatural' miracles on that. We have to notice that Ps 90 (see v4) is 'a prayer of Moses...'

 

[Jose Fly]

It's nice to see all of you illustrating, and thereby confirming, 6days' point about creationism being a belief that doesn't contribute anything to science. :up:

 

[Interplanner]

It's nice to see all of you illustrating, and thereby confirming, 6days' point about creationism being a belief that doesn't contribute anything to science. :up:

More creationists than U'ists are contributing to the literature about catastrophism in general and catastrophic plate tectonics in particular. If you are wondering why they don't contribute to a U'ist view of the world, that is a moot question, isn't it?

Silvestru writes that in all his years in U'ism, no one talked about Monterey Canyon. Oard shows that U'ists generally ignore the thousands of mammoths frozen upright in Siberia and the global north.

 

[6days]

However God did not create through an evolutionary process according to His Word. Trying to squeeze millions of years and common ancestry into the Bible leads to two major problems.
1. Believing in physical death existing before "first Adam" sinned, destroys the gospel and defeats the purpose of "Last Adam" defeating physical death.

2. Believing that Genesis 1 is allegorical leads young people to a buffet type Christianity, where they pick and choose what to believe from God's Word.

#1 is not true because Adam's sin has to do with those downstream from him. Evil was already in the universe. Adam's sin has to do with the realm or sphere downstream from him.

No... you destroy the reason why Christ went to Calvary suffering physical death. After Adam sinned, God pronounced a curse upon His creation. Part of that curse was death to humans and vertebrates (nepesh chayyah 'living creatures')

But Hugh Ross and other theistic evolutionists seem to think that physical death already existed before sin.
The following comment from another thread, a TOL member reasons..."The "death" God spoke of was not a physical death. He tells Adam that he will die the day he eats from the tree, but Adam does so, and lives on physically for many years after. If God is always truthful, the death that the Fall brought to us, was not physical."
However..... If you believe physical death was part of God's "very good" creation (Gen.1:31), then I would argue the Gospel is compromised, if not destroyed.*

I will start with reasons why physical death was part of the curse...*
1. Genesis 2:17 in the KJV reads "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die"

Well... Adam did eat of the tree, and he did not physical die that day. So is the verse only referring to spiritual death / separation from God? No... The Hebrew actually suggests a dying process. A more literal translation would be "dying you shall die" or less literally "for as soon as you eat of it, you shall be doomed to die". http://www.accuracyingenesis.com/die.html

A few examples from other translations...
Young's Literal Translation
and of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou dost not eat of it, for in the day of thine eating of it -- dying thou dost die.'

New International Version
but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die."
New Living Translation
except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. If you eat its fruit, you are sure to die."

2. The Bible attributes physical death to sin...specifically referring to Adam. And here is the Gospel....

1Cor. 15: 21 "For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive"Also see Rom. 5:12-19

3. The Bible refers to death as evil... it is the enemy.
1 Cor. 15:26 "The last enemy to be destroyed is death."

So... if physical death is evil... its hard to rationalize that with Genesis 1:31 where God calls His creation " very good". Obviously physical death did not exist until sin entered the world.

(Sad side note... The story of Charles Templeton...amazing evangelist...but he compromised on the matter death before sin, and he eventually turned away from God)

4. If physical death already existed before sin... then why did Christ need to physically die and be resurrected? If the curse in Genesis 2 was only a spiritual death to Adam, then Christ only need to rise, or defeat, spiritual death. Clearly, in 1 Cor. 15:26, physical death was part of the curse which Christ conquers.

5. To imagine that Genesis 2:17 is not referring to physical death, is refuted in Genesis 3:19 (Using KJV again) "In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return."

Physical death ...returning to dust, IS part of the curse. It is something that Christ has defeated and we can join Him in the resurrection. "He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death' or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away." Rev. 21:4

None of the creative acts of God seem to have any time-duration to them. ....

God 'suggests' otherwise in Genesis 1.

 

[Eric h]

Do you believe God guided evolution to create complex things like the smallpox virus, ebola, and the malaria parasite?

God is the creator of all that is seen and unseen, I personally do not believe that God is the evolver of all that is seen and unseen.

We all die, so death is not the problem, but with God, there is the chance of eternal life afterwards.

Yes it does. Read the latest work from Stephen Hawking

Stephen Hawkins might be flattered, but he does not claim to know the origin of the universe or the origin of life.

Stephen Hawkins
So it seems we are on our way to understanding the origin of the universe, though much more work will be needed.

http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-origin-of-the-universe.html

 

[Eric h]

Common ancestry would not be a problem for Christians if God had created that way.*

However God did not create through an evolutionary process according to His Word.

Agreed.

I believe the theory of evolution is a very good explanation as to how life adjusts and adapts. But the theory fails when you try and extrapolate back 3.8 billion years to the first life, it cannot be the explanation for complexity through a natural process.

 

[jeffblue101]

??????????? I don't think 6days said beliefs about the past contribute nothing to science. If he did, he's even more delusional than I thought.

imo, it looks like he was making a point on historical vs experimental science. Nonetheless, if you disregard his justification as written like you just did in your reply then how is that not a quote mine?

It is an argument for non-theistic evolution...not a scientific one (it's philosophical), but an argument nonetheless.

I asked since the most common argument that I hear on these forum from evolutionists is that neo Darwian evolution is compatible with theism. Are you okay with non-scientific philosophical arguments that prove existence of God and His influence on the world or does it only run one way for you?

 

[jeffblue101]

Like I've said....it is impossible to advocate creationism honestly.

and how exactly in an evolutionary worldview is honesty being a good or bad thing relevant?

 

[Jose Fly]

God is the creator of all that is seen and unseen, I personally do not believe that God is the evolver of all that is seen and unseen.

We all die, so death is not the problem, but with God, there is the chance of eternal life afterwards.

I'm not clear on what your answer is. You've argued that evolution alone can't account for biological complexity (you just posted, "the theory fails when you try and extrapolate back 3.8 billion years to the first life, it cannot be the explanation for complexity through a natural process.)". Parasites, viruses, bacteria, and similar things all use quite complex biochemical pathways and structures to cause their diseases and afflictions. So if we grant your argument that only evolution guided by God can account for biological complexity, doesn't that mean God deliberately guided evolution to produce all the parasites, viruses, bacteria, and other things that have caused untold suffering?

Stephen Hawkins might be flattered, but he does not claim to know the origin of the universe or the origin of life.

You had posted that "science cannot offer an explanation" for the origin of the universe. That's demonstrably false, as Hawking's (and others) work shows. Like I conveyed before, there's a lot of room between "no explanation" and "100% complete explanation".

 

[Jose Fly]

imo, it looks like he was making a point on historical vs experimental science.

I thought his statement was very clear. He said that creationism is a belief, not science, and doesn't contribute anything to science. He and I both agree on that point.

Nonetheless, if you disregard his justification as written like you just did in your reply then how is that not a quote mine?

What exactly are you talking about? Quit dragging this out until the thread is long enough for you to hide behind "I already answered". If you think I've misrepresented what 6days posted, then...

1) Copy what 6days posted,

2) Copy what I posted that you think misrepresents #1, and

3) Explain how I misrepresented.

Anyone can just say "You quote mined"; it doesn't become anything more than a baseless accusation until you put some actual substance behind it.

I asked since the most common argument that I hear on these forum from evolutionists is that neo Darwian evolution is compatible with theism

And it is. Everything is compatible with theism. All you have to do is say "God did it that way" and you're done.

Are you okay with non-scientific philosophical arguments that prove existence of God and His influence on the world or does it only run one way for you?

Hard to say until you specify what you're talking about.

and how exactly in an evolutionary worldview is honesty being a good or bad thing relevant?

It always cracks me up when creationists think that an "evolutionary worldview" means "do whatever you want". All that does is show just how ignorant of evolution you are (hint: social structure and order is important for the survival of social organisms, such as humans).

 

[Interplanner]

No... you destroy the reason why Christ went to Calvary suffering physical death. After Adam sinned, God pronounced a curse upon His creation. Part of that curse was death to humans and vertebrates (nepesh chayyah 'living creatures')

But Hugh Ross and other theistic evolutionists seem to think that physical death already existed before sin.
The following comment from another thread, a TOL member reasons..."The "death" God spoke of was not a physical death. He tells Adam that he will die the day he eats from the tree, but Adam does so, and lives on physically for many years after. If God is always truthful, the death that the Fall brought to us, was not physical."
However..... If you believe physical death was part of God's "very good" creation (Gen.1:31), then I would argue the Gospel is compromised, if not destroyed.*

I will start with reasons why physical death was part of the curse...*
1. Genesis 2:17 in the KJV reads "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die"

Well... Adam did eat of the tree, and he did not physical die that day. So is the verse only referring to spiritual death / separation from God? No... The Hebrew actually suggests a dying process. A more literal translation would be "dying you shall die" or less literally "for as soon as you eat of it, you shall be doomed to die". http://www.accuracyingenesis.com/die.html

A few examples from other translations...
Young's Literal Translation
and of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou dost not eat of it, for in the day of thine eating of it -- dying thou dost die.'

New International Version
but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die."
New Living Translation
except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. If you eat its fruit, you are sure to die."

2. The Bible attributes physical death to sin...specifically referring to Adam. And here is the Gospel....

1Cor. 15: 21 "For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive"Also see Rom. 5:12-19

3. The Bible refers to death as evil... it is the enemy.
1 Cor. 15:26 "The last enemy to be destroyed is death."

So... if physical death is evil... its hard to rationalize that with Genesis 1:31 where God calls His creation " very good". Obviously physical death did not exist until sin entered the world.

(Sad side note... The story of Charles Templeton...amazing evangelist...but he compromised on the matter death before sin, and he eventually turned away from God)

4. If physical death already existed before sin... then why did Christ need to physically die and be resurrected? If the curse in Genesis 2 was only a spiritual death to Adam, then Christ only need to rise, or defeat, spiritual death. Clearly, in 1 Cor. 15:26, physical death was part of the curse which Christ conquers.

5. To imagine that Genesis 2:17 is not referring to physical death, is refuted in Genesis 3:19 (Using KJV again) "In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return."

Physical death ...returning to dust, IS part of the curse. It is something that Christ has defeated and we can join Him in the resurrection. "He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death' or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away." Rev. 21:4


God 'suggests' otherwise in Genesis 1.

re the time duration, show me. I'm saying they were done quickly. I thought that would be something you could agree about. What I don't know about the amount of time or not necessary between them.

 

[Interplanner]

No... you destroy the reason why Christ went to Calvary suffering physical death. After Adam sinned, God pronounced a curse upon His creation. Part of that curse was death to humans and vertebrates (nepesh chayyah 'living creatures')

But Hugh Ross and other theistic evolutionists seem to think that physical death already existed before sin.
The following comment from another thread, a TOL member reasons..."The "death" God spoke of was not a physical death. He tells Adam that he will die the day he eats from the tree, but Adam does so, and lives on physically for many years after. If God is always truthful, the death that the Fall brought to us, was not physical."
However..... If you believe physical death was part of God's "very good" creation (Gen.1:31), then I would argue the Gospel is compromised, if not destroyed.*

I will start with reasons why physical death was part of the curse...*
1. Genesis 2:17 in the KJV reads "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die"

Well... Adam did eat of the tree, and he did not physical die that day. So is the verse only referring to spiritual death / separation from God? No... The Hebrew actually suggests a dying process. A more literal translation would be "dying you shall die" or less literally "for as soon as you eat of it, you shall be doomed to die". http://www.accuracyingenesis.com/die.html

A few examples from other translations...
Young's Literal Translation
and of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou dost not eat of it, for in the day of thine eating of it -- dying thou dost die.'

New International Version
but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die."
New Living Translation
except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. If you eat its fruit, you are sure to die."

2. The Bible attributes physical death to sin...specifically referring to Adam. And here is the Gospel....

1Cor. 15: 21 "For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive"Also see Rom. 5:12-19

3. The Bible refers to death as evil... it is the enemy.
1 Cor. 15:26 "The last enemy to be destroyed is death."

So... if physical death is evil... its hard to rationalize that with Genesis 1:31 where God calls His creation " very good". Obviously physical death did not exist until sin entered the world.

(Sad side note... The story of Charles Templeton...amazing evangelist...but he compromised on the matter death before sin, and he eventually turned away from God)

4. If physical death already existed before sin... then why did Christ need to physically die and be resurrected? If the curse in Genesis 2 was only a spiritual death to Adam, then Christ only need to rise, or defeat, spiritual death. Clearly, in 1 Cor. 15:26, physical death was part of the curse which Christ conquers.

5. To imagine that Genesis 2:17 is not referring to physical death, is refuted in Genesis 3:19 (Using KJV again) "In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return."

Physical death ...returning to dust, IS part of the curse. It is something that Christ has defeated and we can join Him in the resurrection. "He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death' or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away." Rev. 21:4





God 'suggests' otherwise in Genesis 1.

re the realm of the curse: you are not dealing with the people affected. I don't know if this is an attention span thing or what, but you are not speaking to my question, so don't pretend that you are.
There was evil before Adam's sin. There was the effect of evil--the chaos of unfilled and unformed, which is from God's judgement on something. Job 38 says there was a cleansing. The model of the flood applied retroactively to the creation also shows that. But it was other evil than Adams until Adam sinned and participated.

You keep pasting a set of answers to things I'm not asking about.

The Gospel of Christ is still absolutely necessary for justification from sins (Rom 3 and Acts 13), and the whole universe will be swept clean when the NHNE is made.