Enoch2021 Posted February 17, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 11 Topic Count: 19 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,396 Content Per Day: 0.90 Reputation: 730 Days Won: 4 Joined: 12/21/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/26/1963 Share Posted February 17, 2014 The "con" for theistic evolution was that it was a compromise of evolution and/or creationism. The "con" for creationism was that there was no scientific mechanism for "And God said ..." Even evolution's proposed mechanism had "missing links" and was therefore unproven, making it more hypothesis than theory. Today they repackage it as Neo-Darwinism, microevolution, etc. The fourth category was ET as in of Extraterrestrial Origins. Life planted on the earth from an asteroid, or meteor was simple enough to teach, but it didn't directly address the question of origins: it only moved the question to another planet. BTW, I am 2Old. Ahhh yes, Panspermia. I had written something up on that a Long Time Ago and forget where I put it. Basically they concluded that "Cells" or "Life" couldn't survive entry into the atmosphere. You're 2 Years Old?? LOL, he's 58. "2Old" = "Too old." LOL. Thanks for spelling that out. I don't have a good excuse for not catching that so I'll just leave it Alright got one..... I was taking OldSchool2's comment as a Historic Narrative and rendering it as Literal as Possible.....Good? Caveat to the Listeners: OldSchools2's Historic Narrative (with abbreviations) is quite a bit different from GOD'S (Historic Narrative) Plain WORD...so don't be conflating the two Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a-seeker Posted February 18, 2014 Group: Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service Followers: 0 Topic Count: 9 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 589 Content Per Day: 0.16 Reputation: 42 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/06/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted February 18, 2014 My question is, what is the exactly distinction between OEC and ID? Can you be OEC and think that God created life in stages that resemble evolution? Can you be an ID type and think that God created through evolution? I take it you mean can you be an OEC without contradiction? Of course you can. For some reason people think it perfectly reasonable to conceive God forming man instantaneously from mud, but not slowly from a long chain of other creatures? As if the one material is more suitable than the other. Both are miraculous and the difference of time between them is irrelevant. Now, if you mean can you be one without contradicting Scripture, well that is an exegetical question. clb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alphaparticle Posted February 18, 2014 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 48 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,363 Content Per Day: 0.35 Reputation: 403 Days Won: 5 Joined: 08/01/2013 Status: Offline Author Share Posted February 18, 2014 The text speaking for itself wants us to try to understand evening and morning without a sun and earth system. I really don't think there is a clear cut way to understand what that means. Why would we just assume a 24 hr cycle? Letting the text speak for itself, it introduces concepts that are defined by the rotation of the earth relative to the sun. That is just what morning and evening *are*. So when those concepts are used before these things are created I have to seriously question that a plain, straight forward reading of the text ought to lead to a 24 hr day interpretation. Well said, but I have explained this before. If we see the earth and universe already in existence before creation week, but see creation week as God producing visibility some days, and God creating biological life forms supernaturally on the other days, we can then accept the face value of the 24 hour days as described. Night/day evening/morning. 6 literal days of light shining through the waters in the air, and God creating life. Yeah, and perhaps, but that isn't the most obvious reading either. Gen 1:14-19 might be read that way, but they seem to most easily be saying that these 'lights' were made at that time also. I'm not going to discount your reading, don't get me wrong, but I don't think it's extremely *clear-cut* which is the best way to read this. I accept your point, although I believe it becomes the most clear cut view if we look at the following 1) the different Hebrew words used for the "creation" of biological life, and the "producing/observation" of light/s 2) the emphasis of God's location on earth's surface instead of the usual heavenly location. 3) the emphasis on airborne water, which lifts up to create visibility 4) facing that the morning/evening does sound like a normal day (context favors a literal day) 5) Reconciling these literal days with the sun being subsequently produced/observed I agree its not the only possibility, but at least it reconciles the apparent contradictions while remaining faithful to the Hebrew. (I'm not trying to convince you here, you have stated your position and I appreciate your openness. I'm just hoping some other readers will see the sense of this view) I'll give this some thought. Let me lob this at you and see what you think. If I take the view you are suggesting, which as I understand it is the formation of something like the surface of the earth from the point of view of things happening on the earth, is it possible that the bulk of the earth itself had been previously around for a long time and was being re-formed? I suppose I know you are OEC so I am curious to see how you fit this all together also. I might also wonder though, if it is possible to see this as from the earth's point of view as stuff is being formed, who is to say that God didn't bring forth animals already previously evolved? We have God 'presenting' the lights that govern day and night to the earth, if I understand you correctly, by changing the earth's atmosphere so that the sun and moon can be seen from the surface. What if something analogous could happen with biological life? I admit that is more of a stretch interpretively in that they aren't being formed out of nothing on those literal days, but at the outset I might think it's plausible alternative to look at. Once again good points, regarding biological life I am a bible literalist and try to stay as faithful to the Hebrew as possible. The word "created" is not used for the light/s in the sky, yet it is used for the land, and the sky in verse 1 and also the creation of biological life. I believe if the bible says these were created in 24 hour days, this is what we are to believe. If I found anything in DNA, geology to contradict this maybe I would have another look at the bible meaning, but I don't see any part of science that favors the mainstream scientific position over the biblical scientific position. 6 literal days, this is when biological life was created. Regarding the bulk of earth being around and being re-formed, this is possible, God could have been doing many interesting things in the universe and this planet for billions of years before creation week started. The story of creation week is mankinds story, the story of our origins. The angels must have their story too, maybe there's a "book of angels" in heaven, a story of why and how God created them, where they were created, describing the first angel. The possibilities are endless but we are to be concerned with man's story, here on planet earth. I personally see no evidence of any other activity here on earth, I regard this planet as set aside for mankind's story, although the bible does not actually say that. To me the paleozoic world with its 35% oxygen and misty environment was perfect for the long life-spans of the bible times, and the great death of history (PT boundary) matches the great death of the bible (flood) and have no reason to suspect a pre-Genesis world that needed to be re-formed. I believe it formed once, referring to geology. Hope my waffling answered your questions. It does. Thanks for sharing this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts