'Creationism' and 'Intelligent Design' are inherently NOT disciplines

[Paul James]

9 hours ago, one.opinion said:

Jesus treated Adam and Eve as real history. That’s it. Consider what truly trusting Jesus’s words rather than man’s actually means in this context.

I am presently going through a commentary on Genesis, and the first chapter has links to many Old Testament references that show that God created the universe out of nothing, set the stars in place, all to a perfect design.  It is interesting that the world was created first, even before space and the rest of the universe.  Evolution says that there was a big bang and the universe formed before the world, which was a molten ball of lava which eventually cooled.  The Bible says that a cool planet, totally surrounded by water was formed first out of nothing, then God created the space around it (the firmament), then planted it with trees and vegetation, then the sun, moon, and stars.  It is interesting to note that God created light first, and divided it into light and darkness, before the sun and moon were created.  So there was another light source before the sun.  So, God called the light "day" and the darkness "night", before the sun existed!   

In the book of Job, God designed the positions of the stars, so that we could see the constellations.  In the reference He mentions the constellations Orion among others that He deliberately formed.  So the stars did not haphazardly spread out with no design.   It is also interesting that God, by just speaking, formed the dry land and separated it from the sea - before the sun, moon and stars were created.   He created all these things by just say, "Let it be".

To say that all this happened by time and chance (Evolution), is to say that God did not create the world in the way that Genesis says He created it.  To say that God did not create all this out of nothing, in an instant of time, just by speaking it into being, is to rob Him of His almighty power and glory.  In fact, it is a monstrous blasphemy to say that God had to create the universe and the world in a way that arrogant, fallible man, with is limited reasoning could comprehend.   If man could comprehend everything that God does, and how He does it, He cannot be God.

One day, we will all see God roll up the whole universe and destroy this world in very short order and with a tremendous noise.  This will show God's stupendous power.  Some of us will rejoice that this sinful, imperfect universe will be destroyed by fire and replaced by a perfect one as it was before the Fall.  Others will wail and gnash their teeth because they will know that they were wrong to insult God by rebelling against Him and robbing Him of the glory that is due to Him.

[The Barbarian]

20 hours ago, Paul James said:

who said it was an allegory.  Jesus didn't.  He treated it as real history. 

No, that's an addition to scripture that creationists insert to make it more acceptable to them.   He never said that the creation story was a literal history.

As you know, allegories can be about real people and real events.

 

 

[The Barbarian]

3 hours ago, Paul James said:

Evolution says that there was a big bang and the universe formed before the world, which was a molten ball of lava which eventually cooled. 

No.  That's a common creationist superstition,but it's not true.   Evolutionary theory is about populations of living things and how they change over time.    Some creationists (not all of them, of course) have come to define "evolution" as "stuff I'd rather not accept."

 

3 hours ago, Paul James said:

To say that all this happened by time and chance (Evolution),

That's another superstition.    Darwin's great discovery was that evolution isn't by chance.   I know you don't mean to insult God by refusing to accept His creation as it is.   Likely, you don't even know that you're disagreeing with Him.   Fortunately, it doesn't matter, unless you make an idol of your new doctrines and insist that everyone must believe them to be saved.   You'll be judged on other things than your view of creation.

But do be careful about trying to make pronouncements for God.   Here's a YE creationist, discussing the worrisome tendencies of some creationsts to idolize their new doctrines:

Ever since I affirmed that the evidence for evolution is reasonable and that evolutionary theory has not failed, I've been explaining ideas about science and evidence leading up to this post. After many years in this debate, I've come to the uncomfortable conclusion that we creationists have made an idol of our own arguments. I don't say this lightly or flippantly either. This is a deadly serious problem, and the conservative wing of Christianity desperately needs to address it.

http://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2009/11/nature-of-idolatry.html

Give it some thought.

 

 

 

Edited May 20, 2020 by The Barbarian

[one.opinion]

7 hours ago, Paul James said:

To say that God did not create all this out of nothing, in an instant of time, just by speaking it into being, is to rob Him of His almighty power and glory.

He did create it out of nothing. There is nothing in the Bible indicating that creation was instant. I started a thread on precisely why I believe accepting evolution DOES NOT rob God of any glory. Maybe check it out.

[ChemEngineer]

ANY school of thought which has ANY supernatural mechanisms as a means is inherently disqualified to be a scientific discipline. In addition to the obvious damage and hindrance to our educational curricula, these attempts are a huge misrepresentation of spiritual reality and Biblical truth; - Original Post

 

Don't  lecture anyone on the"obvious damage and hindrance to our educational curricula" when it is so firmly entrenched in the hands of Leftists who promote socialism,  dependence, homosexuality, transgender insanity, abortion and atheism.  http://TheEducationFraud.wordpress.com

 

 

[David1701]

On 5/20/2020 at 1:48 AM, The Barbarian said:

No.  That's a common creationist superstition,but it's not true.   Evolutionary theory is about populations of living things and how they change over time.    Some creationists (not all of them, of course) have come to define "evolution" as "stuff I'd rather not accept."

 

That's another superstition.    Darwin's great discovery was that evolution isn't by chance.   I know you don't mean to insult God by refusing to accept His creation as it is.   Likely, you don't even know that you're disagreeing with Him.   Fortunately, it doesn't matter, unless you make an idol of your new doctrines and insist that everyone must believe them to be saved.   You'll be judged on other things than your view of creation.

But do be careful about trying to make pronouncements for God.   Here's a YE creationist, discussing the worrisome tendencies of some creationsts to idolize their new doctrines:

Ever since I affirmed that the evidence for evolution is reasonable and that evolutionary theory has not failed, I've been explaining ideas about science and evidence leading up to this post. After many years in this debate, I've come to the uncomfortable conclusion that we creationists have made an idol of our own arguments. I don't say this lightly or flippantly either. This is a deadly serious problem, and the conservative wing of Christianity desperately needs to address it.

http://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2009/11/nature-of-idolatry.html

Give it some thought.

 

 

 

Molecules to man evolution is completely incompatible with Christianity.  If anyone claims to be a Christian, then he should believe the testimony about creation that God has given us, not rely upon atheistic suppositions that change with the wind.

There is no scientific mechanism that can explain how the first life came to be (even atheistic evolutionists acknowledge this).

There is no scientific mechanism by which irreducibly complex parts of organisms can be built up over millions of years.

There is no scientific mechanism by which the massive increases in genetic information, required for molecules to man evolution, could come about (mutations cause damage and do not increase information).

[one.opinion]

On 5/28/2020 at 1:22 PM, ChemEngineer said:

Don't  lecture anyone on the"obvious damage and hindrance to our educational curricula" when it is so firmly entrenched in the hands of Leftists who promote socialism,  dependence, homosexuality, transgender insanity, abortion and atheism.  http://TheEducationFraud.wordpress.com

This is a side-conversation that is not relevant to the OP. The truth is that science education should be based on evidence. I am honest with my students about my faith and my belief that the same God that is my personal Lord and Savior is the same God that created the universe and everything in it. I go on to explain that what we can see of His creation (evidence) strongly supports that God created the diversity of living things through the intricate and amazing process of evolution.

[one.opinion]

On 5/29/2020 at 10:06 AM, David1701 said:

Molecules to man evolution is completely incompatible with Christianity.  If anyone claims to be a Christian, then he should believe the testimony about creation that God has given us, not rely upon atheistic suppositions that change with the wind.

God creating through evolution is clearly not an atheistic concept. The issue isn't whether or not to believe the testimony of Genesis 1 and 2, the question is whether or not the description is a literal or figurative account. There are clear figurative elements in the account (ie Adam was not truly looking for a mate among the animals God brought to him for naming) and a literal account is not consistent with what the evidence that God left for us in His creation.

On 5/29/2020 at 10:06 AM, David1701 said:

There is no scientific mechanism that can explain how the first life came to be (even atheistic evolutionists acknowledge this).

Rather, the scientific mechanism is not known. Could there be a mechanism discovered in the future? I believe that is potentially possible. However, with the current evidence, I believe it is more plausible to assume specific, divine action in the creation of the earliest forms of life.

On 5/29/2020 at 10:06 AM, David1701 said:

There is no scientific mechanism by which irreducibly complex parts of organisms can be built up over millions of years.

Irreducible complexity is tricky and very broad. Can you give an example of a part that you believe is irreducibly complex that we can discuss individually?

On 5/29/2020 at 10:06 AM, David1701 said:

There is no scientific mechanism by which the massive increases in genetic information, required for molecules to man evolution, could come about (mutations cause damage and do not increase information).

If it were true that mutations ONLY cause damage, then this would be a fair point. However, this is not the case. Here is a really good example of mutations leading to increase in information.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5850335/

Mutations in DNA sequences that do not code for proteins can mutate into sequences that do. In this case, a specific example of antifreeze proteins in fish living in far northern waters.

This is an obvious mechanism for increase in information, but duplication and divergence is much more common and is a major driver in the increase of information.

De novo gene production is only one way that new information can be generated

[David1701]

4 hours ago, one.opinion said:

God creating through evolution is clearly not an atheistic concept. The issue isn't whether or not to believe the testimony of Genesis 1 and 2, the question is whether or not the description is a literal or figurative account. There are clear figurative elements in the account (ie Adam was not truly looking for a mate among the animals God brought to him for naming) and a literal account is not consistent with what the evidence that God left for us in His creation.

God's word says that he created everything in six days.  That is not evolution.  He was there, we were not, so we should believe the eye-witness account and not the opinions of evolutionists.

The literal account certainly is consistent with the evidence in creation.  Your opinion about Gen. 1 and 2 being figurative is just that - an opinion.   There is no evidence for it whatever.

Quote

Rather, the scientific mechanism is not known. Could there be a mechanism discovered in the future? I believe that is potentially possible. However, with the current evidence, I believe it is more plausible to assume specific, divine action in the creation of the earliest forms of life.

Scientists acknowledge that spontaneous generation of life is impossible; but some believe it anyway, because they don't want to allow God a foot in the door.  Not very scientific, is it?

The Bible states clearly that God created life, so no Christian should have any doubt about it.

Quote

Irreducible complexity is tricky and very broad. Can you give an example of a part that you believe is irreducibly complex that we can discuss individually?

A living cell.

Quote

 

If it were true that mutations ONLY cause damage, then this would be a fair point. However, this is not the case. Here is a really good example of mutations leading to increase in information.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5850335/

Mutations in DNA sequences that do not code for proteins can mutate into sequences that do. In this case, a specific example of antifreeze proteins in fish living in far northern waters.

This is an obvious mechanism for increase in information, but duplication and divergence is much more common and is a major driver in the increase of information.

De novo gene production is only one way that new information can be generated

 

I'm not a research scientist, so this article is beyond my knowledge; but I would like to see a response to this from a Christian scientist (perhaps someone from Answers in Genesis, or Creation.com).

[one.opinion]

2 minutes ago, David1701 said:

God's word says that he created everything in six days.

Literal approaches to scripture would also require that the sky is a solid dome supported by physical pillars and that the sun revolves around the earth. There are parts of the Bible that I am certain that you accept as figurative language already. All I ask is to consider that it might be appropriate regarding the creation timeline, as well.

5 minutes ago, David1701 said:

He was there, we were not, so we should believe the eye-witness account and not the opinions of evolutionists.

It does not take an evolutionist to recognize that the evidence of a far older universe and planet is stronger than that for an earth roughly 6,000 years old. Geologists recognized the earth was far older many years before Darwin's work. Additionally, astronomy and chemistry/physics (through radiometric dating) offers very clear evidence of a universe far older than 6,000 years.

10 minutes ago, David1701 said:

A living cell.

As I mentioned earlier, we are in agreement on this point. However, evolution is the change in populations of living things over time, not how they came into being. Evolution does not (and cannot) address that question.

14 minutes ago, David1701 said:

I'm not a research scientist, so this article is beyond my knowledge

That's fine, I'll be happy to answer questions you may have if you want to know more. My point is that the evidence clearly contradicts the common and misinformed notion that mutations can only damage cells.