Jump to content
IGNORED

Creation


Pencil24

Recommended Posts


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  29
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  5,240
  • Content Per Day:  2.13
  • Reputation:   1,356
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  07/03/2017
  • Status:  Offline

On 9/2/2021 at 2:00 AM, Waggles said:

Evolution is for the blind that refuse to see the glory of God in the creation that surrounds us.

Where would you categorize someone like me that thinks evolution - as a tool in the hands of the Almighty - reveals God's glory in His patience, creativity, beauty, and intricacy? I accept evolution and yet very much see the glory of God in the creation that surrounds us.

On 9/2/2021 at 6:19 AM, Waggles said:

So where did all the fish and bread come from? How was this new matter created instantly? How is the newly created food the same as the original items? If Jesus can instantly create out of nothing fishes and baked loaves of bread then Genesis 1 is well within his abilities to also create matter and life out of nothing.

I have zero doubt that God created our physical reality out of nothing. I also have zero doubt that God could have created the earth and every living thing on it instantaneously out of nothing. I just don't believe that the evidence He has left for us points to that conclusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Junior Member
  • Followers:  0
  • Topic Count:  0
  • Topics Per Day:  0
  • Content Count:  117
  • Content Per Day:  0.02
  • Reputation:   4
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  07/21/2008
  • Status:  Offline

In answer to the op it has been my experience that quoting scripture to someone who could care less what the Bible says, much less believe it, isn't very effective. When I have conversations about creation this is what I believe. When you talk God you're talking eternity. It's hard for us to wrap our minds around that. The Book says in the beginning. Beginning of what? I believe the Bible gives us the creation, fall, and redemption of man. So a thought is this started 4000 yrs ago? Perhaps but remember eternity. We have no record of what went on countless eons before Adam was created. What do people think God was doing before the last 4000 yrs? It seems like there is a huge argument about creation when salvation should be the focus. I'm not smart enough to argue scientific theory. All I can do is tell of my faith and try my best to set an example. To believe or not is a free will choice God has given. 

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/3/2021 at 8:17 AM, one.opinion said:

Where would you categorize someone like me that thinks evolution - as a tool in the hands of the Almighty - reveals God's glory in His patience, creativity, beauty, and intricacy? I accept evolution and yet very much see the glory of God in the creation that surrounds us.

If you consider DNA/RNA, it is really God's programming language for life: 1s and 0s.  I see Evolutionary Theory failing here.  Especially if you read some of the books by Behe on the Signature of the Cell, Darwin's Doubt, et al.

On 9/3/2021 at 8:17 AM, one.opinion said:

I have zero doubt that God created our physical reality out of nothing. I also have zero doubt that God could have created the earth and every living thing on it instantaneously out of nothing. I just don't believe that the evidence He has left for us points to that conclusion.

That's where faith comes in as an essential component.  I believe in an OEC and I believe the Bible backs me up on that.  When science points to an answer based on the knowledge we have, Christians should not be afraid to consider it.  The Big Bang makes sense to me.  The age of our Earth and the Universe makes sense to me.  The Day-Age concept of Genesis interpretation makes sense to many scientists.  It does to astronomer Hugh Ross.  I don't see you or them lesser Christians based on your understanding of Creation.  Everything in nature, God's Creation, points to an Old Earth.  We won't know who's right until we get to Heaven and then it won't matter.  As I've said many times in many arguments, I believe in the Gap Theory of Creation and I am a follower Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior.

Edited by Saved.One.by.Grace
  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/6/2021 at 5:30 AM, rpfan76 said:

In answer to the op it has been my experience that quoting scripture to someone who could care less what the Bible says, much less believe it, isn't very effective. When I have conversations about creation this is what I believe. When you talk God you're talking eternity. It's hard for us to wrap our minds around that. The Book says in the beginning. Beginning of what? I believe the Bible gives us the creation, fall, and redemption of man. So a thought is this started 4000 yrs ago? Perhaps but remember eternity. We have no record of what went on countless eons before Adam was created. What do people think God was doing before the last 4000 yrs? It seems like there is a huge argument about creation when salvation should be the focus. I'm not smart enough to argue scientific theory. All I can do is tell of my faith and try my best to set an example. To believe or not is a free will choice God has given. 

Genesis 1:1 was a stumbling block to me (I was an agnostic at the time).  The age of the Earth was a stumbling block.  It wasn't until I read about the Gap Theory that everything started to make sense.  In between my scientific work, God has taught me much over the last+ years.  But I was prepared to receive an argument from the Bible because of a near death experience that happened 10 years previously.  At that time I searched all religions trying to make sense of what happened but all fell short.  I wasn't ready yet.  In God's time I was.

I believe in God and I believe in Creation as a means to know Him.  I am an Old Earth Creationist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  29
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  5,240
  • Content Per Day:  2.13
  • Reputation:   1,356
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  07/03/2017
  • Status:  Offline

22 minutes ago, Saved.One.by.Grace said:

If you consider DNA/RNA, it is really God's programming language for life: 1s and 0s.  I see Evolutionary Theory failing here.

Although they sometimes get muddled, there is a difference between biological evolution of living things into other living things and chemical evolution of non-living things into living things. I see abundant evidence for the former, but not so much for the latter. I believe divine action is a better explanation of our current evidence than chemical evolution.

  • Well Said! 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, one.opinion said:

Although they sometimes get muddled, there is a difference between biological evolution of living things into other living things and chemical evolution of non-living things into living things. I see abundant evidence for the former, but not so much for the latter. I believe divine action is a better explanation of our current evidence than chemical evolution.

I understand what you've written and do not dispute it.  Evolution aside, I just find that God's signature can be found in Creation, much like the ones and zeros of a chip specific computer programming language.  I find that awesome and humbling for me!

Someone, maybe it was you, pointed out why the original Adam and Eve lived so long, because their gene pool was perfect at the start of Creation.  But as offspring intermarried, traits occurred and limited Noah's family to three hundred years or so. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  3
  • Topic Count:  27
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  5,026
  • Content Per Day:  0.66
  • Reputation:   964
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  06/20/2003
  • Status:  Offline

On 9/12/2021 at 10:38 PM, Saved.One.by.Grace said:

If you consider DNA/RNA, it is really God's programming language for life: 1s and 0s.  

Turns out, the language evolved.   In fact, for some primitive organisms, it doesn't code exactly as it does for more evolved organisms.   That's how God does most things in this world.  It's what He created nature for.

 

On 9/12/2021 at 10:38 PM, Saved.One.by.Grace said:

I see Evolutionary Theory failing here.  Especially if you read some of the books by Behe

You did know that Behe says he accepts the fact of evolution, did you not?   Here's a review by a YE creationist:

"First, Behe repeatedly gives credence to the evolutionary geologic timetable. He writes about fish that he believes have been around for “ten million years” (2007, p. 16), and how “perhaps a trillion creatures have preceded us [humans—EL] in the past ten million years” (p. 60). Behe even goes so far as to suggest that life has been on Earth for “the past several billion years” (p. 19).

...

Second, much more disturbing than Behe’s insistence on a billion-year-old Earth are his claims about common descent, including the evolution of man. A person has to go no further than The Edge of Evolution’s front inside dust jacket to discover that Behe believes “[t]here is little question that all species on earth descended from a common ancestor.”

https://apologeticspress.org/michael-behe-no-friend-of-young-earth-creationists-2555/

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

Turns out, the language evolved.   In fact, for some primitive organisms, it doesn't code exactly as it does for more evolved organisms.   That's how God does most things in this world.  It's what He created nature for.

Your opinion.

12 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

You did know that Behe says he accepts the fact of evolution, did you not?   Here's a review by a YE creationist:

"First, Behe repeatedly gives credence to the evolutionary geologic timetable. He writes about fish that he believes have been around for “ten million years” (2007, p. 16), and how “perhaps a trillion creatures have preceded us [humans—EL] in the past ten million years” (p. 60). Behe even goes so far as to suggest that life has been on Earth for “the past several billion years” (p. 19).

Not aware of his stand.

12 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

Second, much more disturbing than Behe’s insistence on a billion-year-old Earth are his claims about common descent, including the evolution of man. A person has to go no further than The Edge of Evolution’s front inside dust jacket to discover that Behe believes “[t]here is little question that all species on earth descended from a common ancestor.”

https://apologeticspress.org/michael-behe-no-friend-of-young-earth-creationists-2555/

I also believe the Earth (planet) is billions of years old.

Source: https://www.nps.gov/subjects/geology/age-of-the-earth.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  3
  • Topic Count:  27
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  5,026
  • Content Per Day:  0.66
  • Reputation:   964
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  06/20/2003
  • Status:  Offline

2 hours ago, Saved.One.by.Grace said:

Your opinion.

Why else would He make nature?    It's the way He does most things in this world.

2 hours ago, Saved.One.by.Grace said:

Not aware of his stand.

He's not unique.   An "intelligent designer" is entirely incompatible with YE creationism.   Here's another IDer on that issue:

t is important to emphasize at the outset that the argument presented here is entirely consistent with the basic naturalistic assumption of modern science—that the cosmos is a seamless unity which can be comprehended in its entirety by human reason and in which all phenomena, including life and evolution and the origin of man, are ultimately explicable in terms of natural processes. This is an assumption which is entirely opposed to that of the so-called “special creationist school.” According to special creationism, living organisms are not natural forms, whose origin and design were built into the laws of nature from the beginning, but rather contingent forms analogous in essence to human artifacts, the result of a series of supernatural acts, involving God’s direct intervention in the course of nature, each of which involved the suspension of natural law. Contrary to the creationist position, the whole argument presented here is critically dependent on the presumption of the unbroken continuity of the organic world– that is, on the reality of organic evolution and on the presumption that all living organisms on earth are natural forms in the profoundest sense of the word, no less natural than salt crystals, atoms, waterfalls, or galaxies.

In large measure, therefore, the teleological argument presented here and the special creationist worldview are mutually exclusive accounts of the world. In the last analysis, evidence for one is evidence against the other. Put simply, the more convincing is the evidence for believing that the world is prefabricated to the end of life, that the design is built into the laws of nature, the less credible becomes the special creationist worldview.

Michael Denton, Nature's Destiny

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

Why else would He make nature?    It's the way He does most things in this world.

Wrong.  God breathed life into man which is different than any other of His Creations.

17 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

He's not unique.  

God is unique having no beginning and no end.  Immortal.

17 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

An "intelligent designer" is entirely incompatible with YE creationism.

I am an OEC so you'll have to have someone else argue with you about this.  I see YE creationists equivalent to the Flat Earthers.

17 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

Here's another IDer on that issue:

t is important to emphasize at the outset that the argument presented here is entirely consistent with the basic naturalistic assumption of modern science—that the cosmos is a seamless unity which can be comprehended in its entirety by human reason and in which all phenomena, including life and evolution and the origin of man, are ultimately explicable in terms of natural processes. This is an assumption which is entirely opposed to that of the so-called “special creationist school.” According to special creationism, living organisms are not natural forms, whose origin and design were built into the laws of nature from the beginning, but rather contingent forms analogous in essence to human artifacts, the result of a series of supernatural acts, involving God’s direct intervention in the course of nature, each of which involved the suspension of natural law. Contrary to the creationist position, the whole argument presented here is critically dependent on the presumption of the unbroken continuity of the organic world– that is, on the reality of organic evolution and on the presumption that all living organisms on earth are natural forms in the profoundest sense of the word, no less natural than salt crystals, atoms, waterfalls, or galaxies.

In large measure, therefore, the teleological argument presented here and the special creationist worldview are mutually exclusive accounts of the world. In the last analysis, evidence for one is evidence against the other. Put simply, the more convincing is the evidence for believing that the world is prefabricated to the end of life, that the design is built into the laws of nature, the less credible becomes the special creationist worldview.

Michael Denton, Nature's Destiny

The inanimate cannot create the animate.  That's what you're left with in your or Denton's argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...