Calling all young earth creationists!

[fantome profane]

Cheers for clearing that up. Can you see how I came to that conclusion? Scripturaly?

If the story of Adam and Eve can be an allegorical story about the origin of life it can also be a allegorical story about the origin of sin.

Can you see how someone can believe Genesis is not literal and not think Jesus's sacrifice was pointless?

 

[Youtellme]

Wishful thinking?

Ha! What if I showed you the verses? Scripturaly?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I would be underwhelmed.

 

[Youtellme]

I would be underwhelmed.

That's your problem. I'd be right tho!:yes:

 

[dust1n]

The age of the earth goes hand in hand with evolution. Evolution needs millions of years. So it does have everything to do with evolution. Jesus said in Mark 10:6 that God made humans male and female at the beginning of creation.

That seems improbably considering this:

Studies of strata, the layering of rocks and earth, gave naturalists an appreciation that Earth may have been through many changes during its existence. These layers often contained fossilized remains of unknown creatures, leading some to interpret a progression of organisms from layer to layer.[10][11]

Nicolas Steno (17th century) was one of the first Western naturalists[clarification needed] to appreciate the connection between fossil remains and strata.[11] His observations led him to formulate important stratigraphic concepts (i.e., the "law of superposition" and the "principle of original horizontality").[12] In the 1790s, the British naturalist William Smith hypothesized that if two layers of rock at widely differing locations contained similar fossils, then it was very plausible that the layers were the same age.[13] William Smith's nephew and student, John Phillips, later calculated by such means that Earth was about 96 million years old.[14]

Age of the Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

...was before Darwin's birth.

 

[johnhanks]

Cheers for clearing that up. Can you see how I came to that conclusion? Scripturaly?

Only if it is demonstrable that the execution of that particular first-century itinerant faith healer was something more than barbaric punishment for sedition levied by a vicious secular government. If your argument rests on that interpretation being unacceptable to you, it is an appeal to consequences.

 

[Skwim]

If you went to our meetings, you'd see what the organisations thoughts on the matter are. In fact, there was a talk recently on the subject of Evolution not being compatible with Christianity. Like I said, it is not supported. However, there may be individuals who feel otherwise.

And that is my point!

And you don't have to take my comments with a grain of salt. I'm still trying to make my mind up on the matter. It's like this, I've been a JW for 18 years and the whole time I have been taught that evolution doesn't make sense, considering the apparent hallmarks of design we see in nature.

I wasn't addressing you personally, but your surety that ". . . there are some who are open to the idea but not openly."

 

[Draka]

That's your problem. I'd be right tho!:yes:

You might find scripture about whatever you want to find. The issue is whether you have the ability to discern whether something was meant to be taken literally or allegorically/metaphorically. If you can't discern the difference, you miss the message entirely.

 

[Youtellme]

You might find scripture about whatever you want to find. The issue is whether you have the ability to discern whether something was meant to be taken literally or allegorically/metaphorically. If you can't discern the difference, you miss the message entirely.

Ok, so, assuming you believe the account of Jesus, as described in the Bible, what do you think his purpose was, if any? Do you ascribe to the notion that all the "unbelievable" accounts, the miracle etc, are just additions, added throughout the ages? If that's the case, then none of it can be regarded as true and would close the entire discussion as you could claim whatever you like about every single scripture.

There has to be some common ground.

 

[WyattDerp]

The age of the earth goes hand in hand with evolution. Evolution needs millions of years. So it does have everything to do with evolution. Jesus said in Mark 10:6 that God made humans male and female at the beginning of creation.

Unless God also falsified the fossil record, that just means what Jesus said there is incorrect; not that's correct because Jesus (supposedly) said it.

 

[Man of Faith]

Unless God also falsified the fossil record, that just means what Jesus said there is incorrect; not that's correct because Jesus (supposedly) said it.

The fossil record validates creation, there is no slow evolution in the fossil record, all confirmed by evolutionists which is why the punctuated equilibrium theory came about. When we look at the fossil record, we see fully functional creatures with complicated eyes with no previous ancestors, there are creatures alive today that have been found in the fossil record that are supposedly millions of years old with no changes in morphology.

 

[Ouroboros]

The age of the earth goes hand in hand with evolution. Evolution needs millions of years. So it does have everything to do with evolution. Jesus said in Mark 10:6 that God made humans male and female at the beginning of creation.

In all the translations I've looked at, it says "from the beginning", not "at the beginning." There's a difference, and it does open up for a different interpretation than creationism. It could suggest a progressive "creation", a constant and continuous process, of mankind, that started at the point of creation.

 

[WyattDerp]

The fossil record validates creation, there is no slow evolution in the fossil record, all confirmed by evolutionists which is why the punctuated equilibrium theory came about.

"clustered changes" don't equal "creation". Even if anyone had claimed evolution needs to be super constant in the expression of genes that affect outer appearance that survives fossilization, and diet and such (arguably a small subset of what makes up any lifeform), then proving that to be incorrect doesn't automatically lend even a iota of credibility to a competing claim, just because it's a competing claim.

When we look at the fossil record, we see fully functional creatures with complicated eyes with no previous ancestors,

How does this validate creation the way you brought it up, with man existing since everything else exists? Fossils are subject to a lot of forces that destroy them. Why, many fossils we actually get out of the ground in liquid form ("fossil fuels", you know). So the fact that you can't find something (easily) (anymore), doesn't constitute positive proof it never existed.

I actually find it rather amazing we can find anything to begin with, of course many many mistakes are bound to be made interpreting a puzzle where 99.99999999% of the pieces are missing.... but to expect a complete set of full evidence for everything, while having nothing but a story as "evidence" for your "theory", is just ludicrous.

there are creatures alive today that have been found in the fossil record that are supposedly millions of years old with no changes in morphology.

If you accept they're millions of years old you'll also see that adding up the lifetimes of the people in the bible doesn't add up to anything anywhere near it. If you don't, why use it as an argument? And even then, what does this argue for? That some things can remain stable for a long time? Yeah, and? Evolution is not like a washing machine, it's not a process that constantly churns out new lifeforms at set intervals. Nobody ever claimed it does either.

 

[Draka]

Ok, so, assuming you believe the account of Jesus, as described in the Bible, what do you think his purpose was, if any? Do you ascribe to the notion that all the "unbelievable" accounts, the miracle etc, are just additions, added throughout the ages? If that's the case, then none of it can be regarded as true and would close the entire discussion as you could claim whatever you like about every single scripture.

There has to be some common ground.

Don't assume that, because it's not true. And you missed my point just as well as you miss the idea of something being metaphorical or allegorical. Do you understand the concept of what myth is at all? What the purpose of myth is?

 

[camanintx]

The fossil record validates creation, there is no slow evolution in the fossil record, all confirmed by evolutionists which is why the punctuated equilibrium theory came about. When we look at the fossil record, we see fully functional creatures with complicated eyes with no previous ancestors, there are creatures alive today that have been found in the fossil record that are supposedly millions of years old with no changes in morphology.

You really think the fossil record includes complicated eyes? The fossil record is primarily bones and skin which only represents a small fraction of an organisms morphology. This leaves a lot of room for changes in organs such as the eye without being reflected in the fossil record.

 

[Youtellme]

Don't assume that, because it's not true. And you missed my point just as well as you miss the idea of something being metaphorical or allegorical. Do you understand the concept of what myth is at all? What the purpose of myth is?

I do. And as you don't believe any of the account of Jesus, for it is all but a myth, there's no point continuing debating anything using scripture, for that too is all but a myth. Bye! :run:

 

[Draka]

I do. And as you don't believe any of the account of Jesus, for it is all but a myth, there's no point continuing debating anything using scripture, for that too is all but a myth. Bye! :run:

Obviously you don't. For you just said "for it is all but a myth". You chalk up myth to be nothing but false or fairy tales apparently. Letting on that you don't know what the point of myth is. You, therefore, don't know the point of your very own Christian mythology and how to go about interpreting it. When you decide to study what myth really is and the reason behind it and what archetypes are and how they are used, perhaps you could better understand how to take certain things allegorically and metaphorically and how you can actually get more meaning that way than trying to take everything literally. When you do that, then perhaps you can come back and we can actually have a conversation. That is if you can not run away from me.

 

[Youtellme]

Obviously you don't. For you just said "for it is all but a myth". You chalk up myth to be nothing but false or fairy tales apparently. Letting on that you don't know what the point of myth is. You, therefore, don't know the point of your very own Christian mythology and how to go about interpreting it. When you decide to study what myth really is and the reason behind it and what archetypes are and how they are used, perhaps you could better understand how to take certain things allegorically and metaphorically and how you can actually get more meaning that way than trying to take everything literally. When you do that, then perhaps you can come back and we can actually have a conversation. That is if you can not run away from me.

Here is how I understand a myth. It can be based on truth but may have had stuff added to it which has embellished the truth, perhaps to such a point that it very difficult to know which bit is the truth from which the myth developed.

However, here is how dictionary.com puts it:
myth
noun
1.
a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, especially one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.
2.
stories or matter of this kind: realm of myth.
3.
any invented story, idea, or concept: His account of the event is pure myth.
4.
an imaginary or fictitious thing or person.
5.
an unproved or false collective belief that is used to justify a social institution.


So, as you can see, there are several ways to interpret even the word "myth"!

 

[Draka]

Ever read anything by Joseph Campbell?

 

[johnhanks]

When we look at the fossil record, we see fully functional creatures ...

Of course we do. Do you really think evolutionary theory demands we should find non-functional or semi-functional creatures? What we find, of course, are many organisms we now see to be transitional between two forms; in their day, however, they were state-of-the-art. Ambulocetus never operated as a 'failed whale'; when it lived, it was a fully functional Ambulocetus.

... there are creatures alive today that have been found in the fossil record that are supposedly millions of years old with no changes in morphology.

Astonishing how this one still gets trotted out, as though creationists really think it's a clincher. There is no law demanding species must change over time: in unchanging environments the mechanisms underlying evolution favour stasis, not change.