Do creationists accept biology?

[leroy]

I'd like to know if hardcore creationists, like Ken Ham, recognized early hominids. Were they placed on Noah's Ark or not?

Early hominids where just humans (creationists will say)

 

[Nimos]

Oh, thanks for mentioning you're an atheist. And I appreciate you're looking at the text. So let's be honest -- there WERE no people living until the what? the sixth day? A 'day' to most westerners usually means the time from midnight to midnight. Evening happens before then. Looking it over (again...), I see that 'day' doesn't always mean a 24-hour period. For instance, right at the beginning it says:
"And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4And God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5God called the light “day,” and the darkness He called “night.”
So what are we to understand from this? That God caused light to shine, would you agree? He made light. But THEN -- He separated light from -- darkness. That was on the first "day."
"And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day."
So, of course, whether it's a small thing or a big thing, God called the light "day," and the darkness "night." The word day therefore is clearly flexible.
"God called the light “day,” and the darkness He called “night.” On the first "day," God said "Let there be light." Light? Light was to happen on the "first day"?? Then He saw the light was good, and He separated it from the darkness. So what do you gather from this? Was there darkness after or before He let there be light? Because -- it says He separated the light from the darkness. And called the light DAY, but the darkness NIGHT. And this all was the first "DAY..." OK, I think we covered some of that. Not all are 24-hour day believers re: the creative days.
Later...and have a good night.

To me Genesis is very messy in regards to light, because I don't see how the ancient people could not see that the light was caused by the sun, even if they didn't knew exactly what it was, they would have been able to figure that out at least. So i think they knew that, just as we do today.

So when God separate light from darkness in that verse you mention, but then later...

Genesis 1:14-19
14 - And God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years,

So what exactly is going on here? He already did that in the other verse right?

15 - and let them be lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth.” And it was so.

So what exactly is the light in the first verse? Because as we will see in the next few verses, it's not the sun or "moon" or the stars.

16 - And God made the two great lights—the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night—and the stars.
17 - And God set them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth,
18 - to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good.
19 - And there was evening and there was morning, the fourth day.

It's not really easy to figure out what exactly they thought light was, because clearly they saw the moon as a lightsource, which we obviously know now that it is not, but rather that it reflects lights, but it makes sense for them to have believed that it were.

But still I don't think it changes anything in regards to what they believed a day was. They probably used the cycles of the sun and moon as well, just as we do, like when a person say "The sun goes down" or "The sun rises in the east". Not sure if that is the same in English as in Danish. But clearly the sun neither goes down or rises anywhere, it's Earth that is rotating and gives the impression that the sun is moving. Which i would guess is because that was the most common view in the part, Earth was in the centre and the rest moved around us, because that is what we could observe.

But the length of a day is decided by the rotational speed of Earth and not by the sun going up and down. And obviously they wouldn't have known that at the time, so maybe their idea of light and darkness, sun and the moon were slightly different than what we think today. And therefore light, being called day and darkness night, would make sense to them. Because as you can see in the verse I quoted, the "great lights" are to rule over "day" and "night" as if these are some entities or something that can be ruled. But at the same time still being able to speak of light and moonlight as different types of light.

Again, I don't think they didn't knew that light came from the sun, I think they misunderstood the moon and the light it reflects as being a lightsource much like the sun. And have no idea exactly what the light and darkness is suppose to be in the first verse.

 

[YoursTrue]

To me Genesis is very messy in regards to light, because I don't see how the ancient people could not see that the light was caused by the sun, even if they didn't knew exactly what it was, they would have been able to figure that out at least. So i think they knew that, just as we do today.

So when God separate light from darkness in that verse you mention, but then later...

Genesis 1:14-19
14 - And God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years,

So what exactly is going on here? He already did that in the other verse right?

15 - and let them be lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth.” And it was so.

So what exactly is the light in the first verse? Because as we will see in the next few verses, it's not the sun or "moon" or the stars.

16 - And God made the two great lights—the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night—and the stars.
17 - And God set them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth,
18 - to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good.
19 - And there was evening and there was morning, the fourth day.

It's not really easy to figure out what exactly they thought light was, because clearly they saw the moon as a lightsource, which we obviously know now that it is not, but rather that it reflects lights, but it makes sense for them to have believed that it were.

But still I don't think it changes anything in regards to what they believed a day was. They probably used the cycles of the sun and moon as well, just as we do, like when a person say "The sun goes down" or "The sun rises in the east". Not sure if that is the same in English as in Danish. But clearly the sun neither goes down or rises anywhere, it's Earth that is rotating and gives the impression that the sun is moving. Which i would guess is because that was the most common view in the part, Earth was in the centre and the rest moved around us, because that is what we could observe.

But the length of a day is decided by the rotational speed of Earth and not by the sun going up and down. And obviously they wouldn't have known that at the time, so maybe their idea of light and darkness, sun and the moon were slightly different than what we think today. And therefore light, being called day and darkness night, would make sense to them. Because as you can see in the verse I quoted, the "great lights" are to rule over "day" and "night" as if these are some entities or something that can be ruled. But at the same time still being able to speak of light and moonlight as different types of light.

Again, I don't think they didn't knew that light came from the sun, I think they misunderstood the moon and the light it reflects as being a lightsource much like the sun. And have no idea exactly what the light and darkness is suppose to be in the first verse.

Of course they could see light is caused by the sun shining in the direction of the earth. (Manner of speaking, of course.) On a cloudy day it doesn't have to be bright. And it could be dark. Thus the light had to do with whatever was happening from the sun's rays to the earth and what the earth was like.

 

[shunyadragon]

Hallelujah. I am really tired of the false dichotomy that some non-believers (read, atheists) seem to put people into....anybody believing in a Creator MUST be a young earth literal 7-24 hour day creationist and all the arguments and criticisms are assuming that....OR, if the person they speak to actually figures that the earth is 4 billion (or thereabouts) years old and evolution is real, MUST be an atheist; no god involved.

At least, those who talk to ME seem to do that.

There are those....MOST Christians, actually...who do believe that "God is Who, evolution is how".

For crying out loud, the Catholic church accepts evolution as 'how,' officially...and since it was a Catholic monk who did the definitive work on inherited characteristics (heard of Gregor Mendel? BTW, he was not only NOT criticized for his work, he was made an Abbot).

Ah, well.

Actually yes, maybe or no, polls in recent years indicate that 40 to over 50% in the USA do not accept the sciences that support abiogenesis and evolution. There beliefs range from Young Earth Creationist literal Evolution to Old Earth Creationism with a literal Noah Flood. There are other variations that conditionally accept some aspects of evolution, but not the history of humanity as part of evolution. Than there is those that believe in Theistic Evolution Creation among liberal churches that believe that the Science of Evolution is how, and God is who. Yes the Roman Church often makes statments of support for evolution, and allows the belief in Theistic Evolution, but allows individual believers to choose their own view.

Actually the work of Gregor Mendel was among the first to describe the genetic nature of inherited qualities over generations, but no this does not amount to acceptance of evolution, and Mendel made no proposal for evolution. His work did not contribute to Charles Darwin's proposal for a theory nor others who made proposals for evolution around the time Darwin proposed his thesis.

 

[shunyadragon]

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...

I find this a huge stretch of an active imagination based on a religious agenda. There is no relationship between the cell and the temple.

 

[gnostic]

Of course they could see light is caused by the sun shining in the direction of the earth. (Manner of speaking, of course.) On a cloudy day it doesn't have to be bright. And it could be dark. Thus the light had to do with whatever was happening from the sun's rays to the earth and what the earth was like.

But in the first day, it say god created light, to divide the day from night, light from darkness, and the first evening and morning...all with no mention of the Sun.

So what is the light source for the daylight, if it isn’t the sun?

I asked, because as nimos have quote, the sun was created until the 4th day. Which would mean the daylight from 2 consecutive morning after the first, there is no sun.

So where did daylight come from in the first 3 days?

Clearly the author or authors were confused about daylight and the sun, thinking that daylight didn’t come from the sun.

And that’s not the only problem, because the same chapter indicated quite clearly that ocean existed before the sun, the dry land existed before the sun, and last but not least, vegetation were created before the sun.


All of that the order of creation is wrong, and the current theories in science disagree with everything about Genesis 1 - from the first verse to the 19th verse.

Clearly, the authors to Genesis have no understanding about the nature of the Earth or the nature of the Sun.

 

[paarsurrey]

Do creationists accept biology?

With the current world population at 7.8 billion, how many humans does one project to understand whether they are creationists or evolutionist or they accept biology or not? Right, please?
They have the same life and or fate as those who are creationists or evolutionists and those who accept biology or not. Right, please?

Regards

 

[shunyadragon]

Do creationists accept biology?

With the current world population at 7.8 billion, how many humans does one project to understand whether they are creationists or evolutionist or they accept biology or not? Right, please?
They have the same life and or fate as those who are creationists or evolutionists and those who accept biology or not. Right, please?

Regards

By Creationists I will understand you are referring to Fundamentalist Creationists of Judaism, mostly Christianity, and Islam. This genre does reject the science of evolution therefore reject biology except what agrees with their agenda.

Actually by the polls, and the facts of history those that reject evolution and global warming also reject the fact that over population is a threat or problem for humanity. Those that reject over population are mostly strongly religious Jewish, Christians and Muslims the reject population control such as birth control and that push to have large families. This is segment of population that rejects the science of biology

 

[shunyadragon]

Early hominids where just humans (creationists will say)

Regardless we are talking about millions of years of a gradual evolution of human ancestry.

Depends on how you define humans. If you describe humans as intelligent tool making humanoids than Australopithecus are humans going back about 4 million. If not humans have been around for more than 200,000. Australopithecus has many intermediate characteristics between earlier primate ancestors that walked upright and had many human characteristics, and humans.

 

[paarsurrey]

Regardless we are talking about millions of years of a gradual evolution of human ancestry.

Depends on how you define humans. If you describe humans as intelligent tool making humanoids than Australopithecus are humans going back about 4 million. If not humans have been around for more than 200,000. Australopithecus has many intermediate characteristics between earlier primate ancestors that walked upright and had many human characteristics, and humans.

Doesn't one mean that all progress made by humans whether believers or non-believers it has been very natural or it has intuitively evolved, not special for any individual persons or any group of persons consciously by name/s in any field, please?
It is like other animals are doing. Right, please?
Most of the common humans among the current 7.8 billions are not concerned with it, as its fruits have never reached them. Right, please?

Regards

 

[YoursTrue]

Do creationists accept biology?

With the current world population at 7.8 billion, how many humans does one project to understand whether they are creationists or evolutionist or they accept biology or not? Right, please?
They have the same life and or fate as those who are creationists or evolutionists and those who accept biology or not. Right, please?

Regards

You might want to notice what the Bible has to say about this, somewhat in agreement with what you are saying::
Ecclesiastes chapter 3:18-20.
"I also said in my heart about the sons of men that the true God will test them and show them that they are like animals, 19 for there is an outcome for humans and an outcome for animals; they all have the same outcome. As the one dies, so the other dies; and they all have but one spirit. So man has no superiority over animals, for everything is futile. 20 All are going to the same place. They all come from the dust, and they all are returning to the dust."
So you see, as the writer wrote, animals and humans have the same outcome. In the sense of death, man has no superiority over animals, for -- all came from dust and are returning to dust.
May I ask what you think of this?

 

[shunyadragon]

Doesn't one mean that all progress made by humans whether believers or non-believers it has been very natural or it has intuitively evolved, not special for any individual persons or any group of persons consciously by name/s in any field, please?
It is like other animals are doing. Right, please?
Most of the common humans among the current 7.8 billions are not concerned with it, as its fruits have never reached them. Right, please?

Regards

'Fruits(?) reaching humans' would be a rather selective consideration if God is God. As unfortunately many ancient religions believe is that they are the ones to receive the 'fruits reaching them.' Fundamentally a contradictory consideration if God is the Creator of all, and universal not selective.

The evidence indicates that those that embrace an ancient religion are most likely to reject the concept 'population control, evolution, and global warming. They are dominately vested in their culture and religion mostly from birth, and loose some of their free will to make rational decisions based on the evidence, and not anchored in their culture and beliefs.

 

[shunyadragon]

By Creationists I will understand you are referring to Fundamentalist Creationists of Judaism, mostly Christianity, and Islam. This genre does reject the science of evolution therefore reject biology except what agrees with their agenda.

Actually by the polls, and the facts of history those that reject evolution and global warming also reject the fact that over population is a threat or problem for humanity. Those that reject over population are mostly strongly religious Jewish, Christians and Muslims the reject population control such as birth control and that push to have large families. This is segment of population that rejects the science of biology

To add: Belief in ancient religions and their variations today results in the common belief in 'conspiracy theories' like QAnon, and rejection of the COVID-19 pandemic, and more tragic unfortunately the rejection of vaccines and measures to reduce the spread of COVID-19 resulting in the unnecessary death of hundreds of thousands of humans.

In the USA this genre represents 40-50% of the adult population, which is roughly the equivalent to those who do not get the flu vaccination each year. World wide this genre is the dominant cause of the violence and radical division among humans.

 

[dad]

'Fruits(?) reaching humans' would be a rather selective consideration if God is God. As unfortunately many ancient religions believe is that they are the ones to receive the 'fruits reaching them.' Fundamentally a contradictory consideration if God is the Creator of all, and universal not selective.

The evidence indicates that those that embrace an ancient religion are most likely to reject the concept 'population control, evolution, and global warming. They are dominately vested in their culture and religion mostly from birth, and loose some of their free will to make rational decisions based on the evidence, and not anchored in their culture and beliefs.

Population control...I think people wanting others to not live should start with themselves. Why volunteer others for death? If it is such a great idea then those who push it should be at the front of the line.

 

[gnostic]

Population control...I think people wanting others to not live should start with themselves. Why volunteer others for death? If it is such a great idea then those who push it should be at the front of the line.

This is stupid over-simplification, dad

Population control isn't about killing anyone.

It is about being more responsible, such as not planning to have large family, about using condoms and pills to avoid having unplanned child.

A lot of unplanned pregnancies have resulted in children being abandoned, left in orphanage (or other related systems) or shifted from foster parents to foster parents. These children often lived in poverty without adequate care and education.

Of course, not all unplanned birth will result in abandonment; it is just couple not expecting to have one at that time, and in this situation, they will love and care for them...but this is only when there are family system in place, eg couples already married.

But having very large family when neither parents have good sustainable jobs, is just irresponsible.

This whole killing people thing is just plain stupid.

 

[shunyadragon]

You might want to notice what the Bible has to say about this, somewhat in agreement with what you are saying::
Ecclesiastes chapter 3:18-20.
"I also said in my heart about the sons of men that the true God will test them and show them that they are like animals, 19 for there is an outcome for humans and an outcome for animals; they all have the same outcome. As the one dies, so the other dies; and they all have but one spirit. So man has no superiority over animals, for everything is futile. 20 All are going to the same place. They all come from the dust, and they all are returning to the dust."
So you see, as the writer wrote, animals and humans have the same outcome. In the sense of death, man has no superiority over animals, for -- all came from dust and are returning to dust.
May I ask what you think of this?

The science of evolution makes no claims one way or the other, and remains neutral to any interpretation concerning the above citation.

 

[Colt]

I mean the observations, findings etc that are not explicitly within the field of evolution?

To me biology is the study of life created by God.

 

[Subduction Zone]

To me biology is the study of life created by God.

We will take that as a "No" to the OP.

 

[Yerda]

To me biology is the study of life created by God.

So biology is legit?

 

[shunyadragon]

So biology is legit?

The current academic science is the standard.