Do creationists accept biology?

[Subduction Zone]

He did? When he realized he had been mistaught? I don't think he overreacted, you do. He was willing to expose the fraudulent part of Haeckel's teaching and yes, he apparently didn't like the idea that is what the school system was teaching him when he was learning and growing.

But he really wasn't. Unless he had a poor teacher, but that would have been corrected in his first college biology class. It is no different than teaching that only Columbus knew that the world was wrong when it was almost the opposite. Not that anyone thought that the world was flat, but Columbus thought that the world was much smaller than it really is. He was not a terrible sailor. He knew roughly how far he had traveled and the distance to the New World roughly matched his belief on how far it was from Europe sailing west to India. He was not even close. That was why funds were first denied to him. The king that he asked for money listened to his scientists. They were correct. The world is much bigger than Columbus thought that it was. Tell me, does that do irreparable harm to students of history? It was easily corrected in college. And even though Columbus was wrong, the Earth is still round. Even though Haeckel was wrong, life is still the product of evolution.

 

[gnostic]

Creationists wouldn’t know or understand biology even if it hit him or her on the nose.

 

[ecco]

Do creationists accept biology?

Yes, to the extent that they do believe that missionary position intercourse results in babies.


I just skipped ahead, so if someone else already made this observation, my apologies.

 

[ecco]

I love science...

That comment is demonstrably factually untrue. At best, you agree with those portions of science that do not conflict with your fundamentalist religious beliefs.

but I think the idea that dinosaurs can come from microscopic single celled organisms is ridiculous. There is no proof that it ever happened....and when you say that to them, they get all upset and tell you that science is not about "proof"...its about "evidence".......but the evidence is interpreted to fit their theory so can you trust anything they say?

See, not only do you not love science, you denigrate it at every opportunity.
It has been explained to you many multiple times that science deals in evidence - not proofs. Yet you show your distaste for science by mocking that fact.

Science is difficult and complex, so it's understandable to want (need) the simple way out - GodDidIt. But you can't - honestly - say you love science when you cannot accept the complexities of its findings.

 

[ecco]

I don't believe in Evolution, however I agree with many discoveries found in the field of Biology.

Most Christians don't even realize that the Tabernacle in the Wilderness was a scale model of a Eukaryotic Cell...

SIGH!

 

[gnostic]

Some creationists, particularly Intelligent Design creationists have resurrected the 18th century version of the faulty Watchmaker analogy.

The absurd length that creationists are willing to go through to defend the mythological creationism.

 

[gnostic]

Do creationists accept biology?

Yes, to the extent that they do believe that missionary position intercourse results in babies.


I just skipped ahead, so if someone else already made this observation, my apologies.

And I thought they believed in storks bringing babies to parents.

 

[YoursTrue]

I think the main issue with creationists regardless of them being old or young earth is that eventually their "theory" falls apart. I do however think that old earth creationist are seen as being more realistic than young earth are.

To me, when having spoken to old earth creationists, it seems that they are simply twisting the texts into sort of fitting with science and as long as you don't ask to many questions its all fine.

But looking at some of the points they use to explain why an old earth is perfectly explainable and fits with the bible (If that is the one we are talking about) it quickly seem to cause a lot of problems.

1. Days in the bible is argued to mean a long period of time, which explain why the Earth can be billions of years old. Which obviously makes you wonder why in the creation story it says this:

Genesis 1
13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.

This is typically what we humans understand by a daily cycle and not something that refer to millions or billions of years. Its pretty difficult to get a good explanation for that.

2. If God is timeless, omniscient, omnipotent. Why would he need billions of years anyway, 6 days should be more than enough, that makes little sense.

3. On the 7 day God is resting, so how many million of years is he doing that. Remember humans have already been created earlier, so how exactly does that fit with our current understanding of human evolution. Homo sapiens are not million or billions of years old. So how does these creation days convert into years? Do one assume that they are of equal length or do they just change length depending on what seems to fit the best?

So in the end, when all comes down to it, the old Earth creationists ain't much better off than the young ones. The best explanation, I have heard is that this is just a poetic description of the creation.

Which eventually lead to a question about Luke 3 23-37:

23 Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph,

the son of Heli, 24 the son of Matthat,
the son of Levi, the son of Melki,
the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph,
25 the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos,
the son of Nahum, the son of Esli,
the son of Naggai, 26 the son of Maath,
the son of Mattathias, the son of Semein,
the son of Josek, the son of Joda,
27 the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa,
the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel,
the son of Neri, 28 the son of Melki,
the son of Addi, the son of Cosam,
the son of Elmadam, the son of Er,
29 the son of Joshua, the son of Eliezer,
the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat,
the son of Levi, 30 the son of Simeon,
the son of Judah, the son of Joseph,
the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim,
31 the son of Melea, the son of Menna,
the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan,
the son of David, 32 the son of Jesse,
the son of Obed, the son of Boaz,
the son of Salmon,[d] the son of Nahshon,
33 the son of Amminadab, the son of Ram,[e]
the son of Hezron, the son of Perez,
the son of Judah, 34 the son of Jacob,
the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham,
the son of Terah, the son of Nahor,
35 the son of Serug, the son of Reu,
the son of Peleg, the son of Eber,
the son of Shelah, 36 the son of Cainan,
the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem,
the son of Noah, the son of Lamech,
37 the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch,
the son of Jared, the son of Mahalalel,
the son of Kenan, 38 the son of Enosh,
the son of Seth, the son of Adam,
the son of God.

At which point are we no longer talking about a real person? where in this list does the change occur, if at all? So if the creation story is just a poetic description, then we can assume that Adam probably never lived, which obviously give problems for the bible... and is it realistic to assume that the early Christians thought this as well? Nothing in the bible give the impression that it were the case.


So again, as long as one does not ask to many questions it all fits well together for the old Earth creationist

Good point about the line of descent from Adam to Jesus. I think I know what a new earth creationist is. But what's an old earth creationist?

 

[Nimos]

Good point about the line of descent from Adam to Jesus. I think I know what a new earth creationist is. But what's an old earth creationist?

The old Earth creationist, are those that will twist the meaning of the 6(7) day of creation to mean that a day could be anything from 1 day to billion of years, so they still withhold that everything is absolutely spot on true. But simply that a day is whatever science say it is, in regards to the age of the Universe. So if scientists say the Universe is 14 billion years old, well that works just as well, because a day in Genesis can be anything. To me that is simply to just manipulate the text to fit what you need. Whereas a young earth creationist will at least be true to a day meaning a day.

 

[YoursTrue]

The old Earth creationist, are those that will twist the meaning of the 6(7) day of creation to mean that a day could be anything from 1 day to billion of years, so they still withhold that everything is absolutely spot on true. But simply that a day is whatever science say it is, in regards to the age of the Universe. So if scientists say the Universe is 14 billion years old, well that works just as well, because a day in Genesis can be anything. To me that is simply to just manipulate the text to fit what you need. Whereas a young earth creationist will at least be true to a day meaning a day.

Are you aware that the 7th day in Genesis is not described as the other previous days?

 

[ecco]

23 Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph,

If the story of the Holy Ghost impregnating the Virgin Mary is true, the above bloodline is meaningless since Jesus is not the offspring of any human male.

 

[Nimos]

If the story of the Holy Ghost impregnating the Virgin Mary is true, the above bloodline is meaningless since Jesus is not the offspring of any human male.

Yeah that is correct in regards to Jesus it doesn't really matter. But i do think it matters if someone argues that Noa is real for instance, but that Adam and Eve clearly isn't.

 

[Nimos]

Are you aware that the 7th day in Genesis is not described as the other previous days?

You have to specify what you mean by that?

 

[YoursTrue]

If the story of the Holy Ghost impregnating the Virgin Mary is true, the above bloodline is meaningless since Jesus is not the offspring of any human male.

Eve came from Adam. Neither had human mother or father. Mary came from their lineage. God could activate whatever reproductive powers he needed to enable His son to be born through Mary.

 

[YoursTrue]

You have to specify what you mean by that?

The day for the Hebrews ran from evening to evening. So the "day" started at the evening, and ended the following evening (sundown).

Genesis 1:5 speaks of evening and morning, the first day. "God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning--the first day."
Gen. 1:8 speaks of the second day, also evening and morning. "And God called the expanse Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, the second day." Again, evening, morning -- the second day.
Gen. 1:13 - third day, evening and morning. "There was evening and there was morning, a third day."
Gen. 1:19 - fourth day, evening and morning. "There was evening and there was morning, a fourth day."
Gen. 1:23,31 shows the fifth and sixth days, also evening and morning.
So the first six days were speaking of having each an evening, followed by a morning.
But the seventh day has no such description as to a beginning (evening) and an end (morning until sundown). God does not grow weary, so I doubt you think he was exhausted.

 

[Nimos]

But the seventh day has no such description as to a beginning (evening) and an end (morning until sundown). God does not grow weary, so I doubt you think he was exhausted.

No, I don't think God is exhausted I would assume that it is related to the sabbath.

 

[ecco]

Yeah that is correct in regards to Jesus it doesn't really matter. But i do think it matters if someone argues that Noa is real for instance, but that Adam and Eve clearly isn't.

I have never heard of anyone accepting the reality of Noah and discrediting the reality of A&E. The other way around, perhaps.

In any event, what was the purpose of posting the bloodline from A&E to Jesus?

 

[ecco]

Eve came from Adam. Neither had human mother or father. Mary came from their lineage. God could activate whatever reproductive powers he needed to enable His son to be born through Mary.

Sure, but that has nothing to do with there being a "bloodline" from A&E to Jesus.

 

[Nimos]

I have never heard of anyone accepting the reality of Noah and discrediting the reality of A&E. The other way around, perhaps.

In any event, what was the purpose of posting the bloodline from A&E to Jesus?

Honestly I can't remember, it's a long time ago

 

[YoursTrue]

No, I don't think God is exhausted I would assume that it is related to the sabbath.

Yes, it is related. But the resting of those within the Law Covenant was to desist or refrain from work that would take them away from reflecting upon Jehovah's wondrous works and information given to the Israelites. God's rest is entailed with his resting from his creative works. The 7th day is not described as having a beginning (evening) and ending (the following evening).