I believe in Creation ...and Evolution

[Scuba Pete]

Did you watch the steps?

The person took some raw ingredients (though someone made the flour, sugar, etc) and mixed them all together. At this point, it didn't look much like a cake, did it?

Then the person put the cake in an over and baked it.

Now by your own admission, this person has "made" a cake just as suredly as if they had snapped their fingers and made it appear out of thin air.

Evolution does not indicate WHO made us, just the mechanism in which we were made. God is still the cook, does it really matter how we got here?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Did you watch the steps?

Do you believe that birds preceded worms?

 

[Ceridwen018]

It fits but this one does not acknowledge that the Bible is fully true and God's word. I guess I should have been more specific.

By considering the creation stories to be mythological, one can most certainly consider them to be the word of God as well. You need to ask yourself, "If this story is not factual, then why would God put it in here?"

Jesus told many parables. Although his parables included realistic scenarios, the people and situations involved were not factual. Then again, whether or not the story really happened was completely beside the point. Jesus conveyed specific messages in the form of fictitious stories because he knew that the common people would be able to better relate and understand them that way. Perhaps that is what God was trying to do with the creation stories. Whether or not they actually happened isn't the point that you should be looking for. Look instead for the metaphorical messages and lessons that God might be trying to teach.

The Hebrew word for “day,” yom, is used in several ways in Genesis 1 that show that the days were ordinary days.

On second thought, this is also quite beside the point. Even if the "days" in Genesis were simply normal 24 hour days, God still could have used an exceptionally excellerated form of evolution to ensure that millions of years worth of change could take place within six days. In the spiritual realm, pretty much anything can be implied.

Secondly, God could have simply created the universe up to a certain point, and THEN begun evolutionary processes. Either way, evolution is happening all around us today and that cannot be ignored.

Where in the Bible does God say he lives outside of time?

Well, the whole, "God has existed forever, and no one created God" gig sort of tipped me off. Then again, for all I know that's not in the Bible either.

I must say, that's a whole other can of worms though. If God is bound by time, (for starters, that would be infringing on his "all powerful" persona), what else is he bound by?

 

[Scuba Pete]

I believe that the early bird gets the worm.

I don't sweat the details Deut. I've got a life.

 

[Passerbye]

Now by your own admission, this person has "made" a cake just as suredly as if they had snapped their fingers and made it appear out of thin air.

Hey... NetDoc,
Have you ever seen wine made, or heard how long it takes to make it, or how long it takes for it to get really good? It takes a long time, however this is what Jesus did:

1On the third day a wedding took place at Cana in Galilee. Jesus' mother was there, 2and Jesus and his disciples had also been invited to the wedding. 3When the wine was gone, Jesus' mother said to him, "They have no more wine."
4"Dear woman, why do you involve me?" Jesus replied, "My time has not yet come."

5His mother said to the servants, "Do whatever he tells you."

6Nearby stood six stone water jars, the kind used by the Jews for ceremonial washing, each holding from twenty to thirty gallons.

7Jesus said to the servants, "Fill the jars with water"; so they filled them to the brim.

8Then he told them, "Now draw some out and take it to the master of the banquet."

They did so, 9and the master of the banquet tasted the water that had been turned into wine. He did not realize where it had come from, though the servants who had drawn the water knew. Then he called the bridegroom aside 10and said, "Everyone brings out the choice wine first and then the cheaper wine after the guests have had too much to drink; but you have saved the best till now."

Did he use a natural process to make the wine from the water? I don't think so.
Did it happen in the amount of time it takes wine to get reeeeaaalllly good normally? No.

Evolution does not indicate WHO made us, just the mechanism in which we were made.

Yes, but the instructions for the mechanism of evolution to work have a backwards part compared to the information given on how it was made.

God is still the cook, does it really matter how we got here?

Does it really matter... it depends. What really matters can be contemplated so deep that you see nothing matters, and conversely it can be contemplated so deep that everything matters. What matters is... what matters.

By considering the creation stories to be mythological, one can most certainly consider them to be the word of God as well. You need to ask yourself, "If this story is not factual, then why would God put it in here?"

Jesus told many parables. Although his parables included realistic scenarios, the people and situations involved were not factual. Then again, whether or not the story really happened was completely beside the point. Jesus conveyed specific messages in the form of fictitious stories because he knew that the common people would be able to better relate and understand them that way. Perhaps that is what God was trying to do with the creation stories. Whether or not they actually happened isn't the point that you should be looking for. Look instead for the metaphorical messages and lessons that God might be trying to teach.

Parables were told as parables. History is told as history. Comparing them is an odd thing to do. A parable is told as a parable, building on nothing but the current parable usually. History runs in chronological order. Genesis is told as history just as other books of the Bible are told as history.

On second thought, this is also quite beside the point. Even if the "days" in Genesis were simply normal 24 hour days, God still could have used an exceptionally excellerated form of evolution to ensure that millions of years worth of change could take place within six days. In the spiritual realm, pretty much anything can be implied.

Yes, but then evil and death would be before the fall of man. Also the Bible says that things were made in a certain order and evolution says they were made in another. We are speaking of two different recipes. Don't try to say that they are the same recipe when they are in a different order.

Secondly, God could have simply created the universe up to a certain point, and THEN begun evolutionary processes. Either way, evolution is happening all around us today and that cannot be ignored.

Uhhhhh, yeah... that's kind of what happened. Yet evolutionists still look at the world as if the processes that are going on now are what turned us from a cell to what we now see.

I believe that the early bird gets the worm.

I don't sweat the details Deut. I've got a life.

Please don't ignore the question.

 

[Scuba Pete]

So Passerbye... do you drink wine or beer?

 

[greatcalgarian]

So Passerbye... do you drink wine or beer?

I vote we go for stronger drink like Whisky or Brandy or Gin or Martini

Then we can all go home and have a good nite sleep and forget about all the arguements:biglaugh:

 

[painted wolf]

some bible on the Ostrich.

Job: 39:14 Which leaveth her eggs in the earth, and warmeth them in dust, 39:15 And forgetteth that the foot may crush them, or that the wild beast may break them. 39:16 She is hardened against her young ones, as though they were not her's: her labour is in vain without fear; 39:17 Because God hath deprived her of wisdom, neither hath he imparted to her understanding.

Lamentations 4:3 Even the sea monsters draw out the breast, they give suck to their young ones: the daughter of my people is become cruel, like the ostriches in the wilderness.

Dead wrong... the Ostrich is a very good parent, they do not abandon thier eggs or thier young. from Wikipedia:

The eggs are incubated by the females by day and by the male by night, making use of the different colors of the two sexes to escape detection. The young hatch after some 35–45 days. Typically, the male will tend to the hatchlings.

some helpful links:
here a female sitting on her nest: http://www.sandiegozoo.org/animalbytes/images/ostrich_inset_on_nest.jpg
male and female guarding the nest: http://rljphoto.com/africa/p8.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostrich
http://www.animalsentience.com/wild_animals/ostrich.htm

on the earth not moving (therefore the sun must go around it because the bible plainly states that the earth does not move)

Psalms 93:1 The LORD reigneth, he is clothed with majesty; the LORD is clothed with strength, wherewith he hath girded himself: the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved.

Psalms 96:10 Say among the heathen that the LORD reigneth: the world also shall be established that it shall not be moved: he shall judge the people righteously.

Psalms 104:5 Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever.

Chronicles 16:30 Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved.

As for bats being birds because they fly... does that mean that butterflys arn't insects but birds? How about Pterosaurs? Naturally they arn't mentioned in the bible but would they be Birds as well? They fly.. granted they were fuzzy reptiles not feathered but they did lay eggs wich is far more birdlike than the Bat.

wa:do

 

[Lindsey-Loo]

Sorry, I know I'm reentering this thread a little late. Bare with me...

The bible was written by people who didn't know what a microorganism was.

Excuse me, but the Bible is the inspired word of God.

Do you find any scripture that condemns evolution or the belief in it?

Try Genesis 1-2

The 6 days were 6000 years.....

2 Peter 3:8 But, beloved, be not ° ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years , and a thousand years as one day.

I think if God had made the Earth in 6000 years, Moses would have written "6,000 years" rather then "6 days" so as to not cause unneccessary confusion. Also, God can just snap his fingers, and it's done. Why would you be so ignorant as to believe that it took 6,000 years for someone like God to make Earth? He is all-powerful.

 

[Scuba Pete]

People take the 1000years/day as some sort of formulae. It was not.

It was a concept, that time does not hinder God.

 

[Ceridwen018]

Yes, but then evil and death would be before the fall of man. Also the Bible says that things were made in a certain order and evolution says they were made in another. We are speaking of two different recipes. Don't try to say that they are the same recipe when they are in a different order.

First of all, I would like for you to explain to me how the two orders are so different. Secondly, evil most certainly did exist before man's fall. Serpents, anyone?

Yet evolutionists still look at the world as if the processes that are going on now are what turned us from a cell to what we now see.

If they didn't think that, they wouldn't be evolutionists.

Also, the only evidence you have to the contrary comes from a literal interpretation of your Bible. For people who actually believe in the Bible, few take it literally.

Excuse me, but the Bible is the inspired word of God.

Honey, we can ride this merry-go-round all day long. The Bible, at best, is an interesting work of mythology. It's certainly NOT a science book.

Try Genesis 1-2

You say tom-ay-to, I say tom-ah-to. Its all in how you want to interpret it, and there are no rules.

I think if God had made the Earth in 6000 years, Moses would have written "6,000 years" rather then "6 days" so as to not cause unneccessary confusion.

He would have written neither, because he was writing in Hebrew. How familiar are you with the possibility of incorrect translation?

Also, are you saying that Gos is not powerful enough to make 1000 years of more worth of change pass by in one year? Again, the Bible was not written by people who understood microorganisms and large numbers--otherwise I'm sure we'd find them in there.

Also, God can just snap his fingers, and it's done.

Apparently not powerful enough to fit it all into one day instead of 6, or even one minute, for that matter.

In my mind, the "6 days" theory shows that ancient peoples actually did have a simplistic idea of how things worked--that water had to come before land, etc. I think they split things up into "days" as a metaphor for the different stages of life and the different things that had to happen. Why are you people so intent on taking it as factual history?

Why would you be so ignorant as to believe that it took 6,000 years for someone like God to make Earth?

Well, why would you be so ignorant as to deny tested scientific facts that are right in front of your face in place of an archaic and fanciful mythology?

 

[Mister Emu]

Also, the only evidence you have to the contrary comes from a literal interpretation of your Bible. For people who actually believe in the Bible, few take it literally.

Come now Ceridwen, there are, albeit an extremely small minority, scientists who argue that the Earth was created a relatively short period of time ago, based on science.

The Bible, at best, is an interesting work of mythology.

:tsk: Is not You are right this merry-go-round just keeps on spinning.

Apparently not powerful enough to fit it all into one day instead of 6, or even one minute, for that matter.

In my mind, the "6 days" theory shows that ancient peoples actually did have a simplistic idea of how things worked--that water had to come before land, etc. I think they split things up into "days" as a metaphor for the different stages of life and the different things that had to happen. Why are you people so intent on taking it as factual history?

Well, the Bible gives reasoning for the six days of creation, and that is to divide time, into seven day periods, where the last is a resting period. Unless of course you suppose that the Bible tells us to work for 6000 years and rest for 1000 years(guess no one is getting any rest than)

Well, why would you be so ignorant as to deny tested scientific facts that are right in front of your face in place of an archaic and fanciful mythology?

I do not deny scientific facts. I do however deny certain scientists' interpretations of these facts.

 

[Ceridwen018]

Come now Ceridwen, there are, albeit an extremely small minority, scientists who argue that the Earth was created a relatively short period of time ago, based on science.

You would think so, Emu. However, I have searched long and hard for scientific evidence for creationism, and I have never seen any. If you know where some is, I would be most grateful for you to pass that information on to me.

**Keeping in mind that "Noah's Flood" is not what I mean by "scientific", and I am quite serious when I say that.**

Unless of course you suppose that the Bible tells us to work for 6000 years and rest for 1000 years

Oh man--NOW I understand why people are so adamant about the 24 hour day!

 

[Mister Emu]

Ceridwen, I am still in high school, so alot of any evidence would be over my head by a large margin. But

Barry Setterfield of www.setterfield.org argues C-decay(I know most disagree, but I personally am in no position to confirm or deny) and a ~10,000 year old (universe/earth).

Oh man--NOW I understand why people are so adamant about the 24 hour day!

Exactly

Now note, I am not an adamant YEC. I truly do not care whether God created it 6 or 10 thousand years ago, or 500 gazillion. It does not change my beliefs at all.

 

[Ceridwen018]

Now note, I am not an adamant YEC. I truly do not care whether God created it 6 or 10 thousand years ago, or 500 gazillion. It does not change my beliefs at all.

I'm glad to hear you say that, Emu. When it comes to faith, some things are just beside the point!

 

[Passerbye]

So Passerbye... do you drink wine or beer?

Wine occasionally… I have never had beer (too unhealthy in my eyes).

I vote we go for stronger drink like Whisky or Brandy or Gin or Martini

Then we can all go home and have a good nite sleep and forget about all the arguements

Haven’t tried any of these either.

Dead wrong... the Ostrich is a very good parent, they do not abandon thier eggs or thier young. from Wikipedia:

The eggs are incubated by the females by day and by the male by night, making use of the different colors of the two sexes to escape detection. The young hatch after some 35–45 days. Typically, the male will tend to the hatchlings.

The Bible doesn’t say anything about the male ostrich, just to let you know. It speaks of the female being hardened against her young. That is true. The Bible says nothing about them being “Bad Parents”. Also, Wikipedia is not THE ALL KNOWING SOURCE OF INFORMATION. Just because it doesn’t say anything about that part of the parenting does not mean it’s not there. Also, even if you don’t believe in the Bible being the word of God you should at least believe that the people in those days, who lived off the wildlife in their area, would know how the animals acted. Would that not be an okay hypothesis? Mind you, I am not saying that an argument should be based solely on that, but it is a nice thing to include.

I shall answer the part on “the earth is the center of the universe” later. I can’t seem to critique the poetry correctly right now. I hope you noticed that all you quoted to me was poetry. Anyway, for now let’s move on to the next part.

As for bats being birds because they fly... does that mean that butterflys arn't insects but birds? How about Pterosaurs? Naturally they arn't mentioned in the bible but would they be Birds as well? They fly.. granted they were fuzzy reptiles not feathered but they did lay eggs wich is far more birdlike than the Bat.

Okay… I was not saying that at all. I am saying that in the language they used in the past things were different. This is what I would like to dub “The Cool Cat Problem”, since I don’t know if there is already a name for it and I think it sounds fun. If you say the phrase “cool cat” in these days you would immediately know what was being spoken of was not in fact a cat on ice. You would probably know that it is a person, sometimes an animal, that looks cool as in phat or whatever other word could be in place of it these days. It’s a problem with change in definition. Now, I know that the definition has not really changed for the word cool but it has been added on to in people’s minds. The same thing happens with the word bird, along with a bunch of others used. They were specifically changed to encompass a better-defined group of animals rather than their current usage for it. I don’t know exactly what was considered “bird” back then but it obviously included the bat, meaning at the time the language held that the bat was a bird so there is no problem apart from the fact that language changes over time.

People take the 1000years/day as some sort of formulae. It was not.

It was a concept, that time does not hinder God.

I agree with the first part. The second part is not correct. It was referring to Jesus saying he will come back soon. That is what is in the context. I already posted something about this not long ago. Please look back at post #278 of this thread. Thank You.

First of all, I would like for you to explain to me how the two orders are so different. Secondly, evil most certainly did exist before man's fall. Serpents, anyone?

1.
A. Evolution states: Plants - Water creatures – Land creatures– Air creatures
B. Bible states: Plants - Water & Air creatures – Land creatures
At least that is to my knowledge of what evolution sees it as. If I am incorrect sorry. Please, someone who knows the order of evolution, correct me. I don’t feel like looking it up right now. I feel somewhat lethargic.
2. Yes, but evil wasn’t involved in man or his dominion until the fall of man, or the lie of the serpent, which is actually where God begins his punishment of them.

Also, the only evidence you have to the contrary comes from a literal interpretation of your Bible.

Yes, and you have not proven my literal interpretation wrong (not counting the earth-sun thing that we have not even discussed yet.)

For people who actually believe in the Bible, few take it literally.

Actually, some polls that were conducted showed that a lot of people take it literally. I will look for the polls.

Honey, we can ride this merry-go-round all day long. The Bible, at best, is an interesting work of mythology. It's certainly NOT a science book.

*Sigh*

You say tom-ay-to, I say tom-ah-to. Its all in how you want to interpret it, and there are no rules.

What about logic language… logic… data… wisdom… you know, those rules. They dictate interpretation. Hypotheses don’t count, they are just ideas.

He would have written neither, because he was writing in Hebrew. How familiar are you with the possibility of incorrect translation?

Also, are you saying that Gos is not powerful enough to make 1000 years of more worth of change pass by in one year? Again, the Bible was not written by people who understood microorganisms and large numbers--otherwise I'm sure we'd find them in there.

!LOL! Large numbers were discovered by whom? There is very little chance they didn’t understand big numbers. Yes, he could have made time pass like that but… he didn’t say he did. Why assume that when he didn’t say it. Please show me the evidence that says we must insert such large amounts of years in there. I have seen nothing but interpretations of data that say that the earth is that old. I have seen no data that says it. Just to let you know, a lot is assumed in the calculations of the billions of years.

Apparently not powerful enough to fit it all into one day instead of 6, or even one minute, for that matter.

Think of it this way please. It is not as if we are saying God “can’t” do it in an instant. We are saying that he didn’t because he said he did it in 6 days. Why do you have a problem separating CAN from DID. If I said I could eat 7 tacos from Taco Bell in 30 minutes, and I did it, does that mean that I must eat them in 30 minutes? No it does not. Will people believe that I can if I tell them and I don’t actually do it in front of them? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Does it imply that I can’t do it in 25 minutes? No.
Do you understand? Just because he said he did it in that amount of time does not mean that he could not have done it faster or slower, it just means that he chose not to.

Why would you be so ignorant as to believe that it took 6,000 years for someone like God to make Earth?

Well, why would you be so ignorant as to deny tested scientific facts that are right in front of your face in place of an archaic and fanciful mythology?

Why would you call each other ignorant? Please refrain from these insults.
Ceridwen018, those scientific facts you speak of are hypothesis, nothing more. They have not been proven. Thus they are not facts.

You would think so, Emu. However, I have searched long and hard for scientific evidence for creationism, and I have never seen any. If you know where some is, I would be most grateful for you to pass that information on to me.

**Keeping in mind that "Noah's Flood" is not what I mean by "scientific", and I am quite serious when I say that.**

That is probably because evolutionists state things as facts and Christian creationists prefer not to jump to calling anything fact but the Bible. Evolutionists have ideas backing them up and so do creationists.

I'm glad to hear you say that, Emu. When it comes to faith, some things are just beside the point!

When it comes to blind faith make sure you’re not following blind guides.

 

[greatcalgarian]

Quote:Originally Posted by painted wolfDead wrong... the Ostrich is a very good parent, they do not abandon thier eggs or thier young. from Wikipedia: Quote:Originally Posted by wikipediaThe eggs are incubated by the females by day and by the male by night, making use of the different colors of the two sexes to escape detection. The young hatch after some 35–45 days. Typically, the male will tend to the hatchlings.

The Bible doesn’t say anything about the male ostrich, just to let you know. It speaks of the female being hardened against her young. That is true. The Bible says nothing about them being “Bad Parents”. Also, Wikipedia is not THE ALL KNOWING SOURCE OF INFORMATION. Just because it doesn’t say anything about that part of the parenting does not mean it’s not there. Also, even if you don’t believe in the Bible being the word of God you should at least believe that the people in those days, who lived off the wildlife in their area, would know how the animals acted. Would that not be an okay hypothesis? Mind you, I am not saying that an argument should be based solely on that, but it is a nice thing to include.

Wikipedia is just a very convenient source of encyclopediac information, I believe 99% accurate . If you do not believe in that, you have to go to the University or Library and look up all research done on Ostrich. If you are lazy to do that, then look at this web
http://www.ostrich.ca/
http://www.afma.co.za/AFMA_Template/sept03_2.htm
http://www.elsenburg.com/animals/pub_ostriches.html:bonk:

But unfortunately modern man is just interested in the nutritional value, and not too concern about whether Ostrich made good parents or not:biglaugh:

Okay be more serious, this is another source:

The adult male’s body is covered with black feathers, the plumes of the wings and tail being white; females and young males have grey feathers. The bill is wide and flat, the small head has large eyes, and the long neck has a sparse covering of downy feathers. The male incubates the eggs at night, but the female may sit on them during the day. Their eggs are the smallest in relation to the adult’s body size of any bird. Ostriches eat mainly plant material and they can survive for a long time without water.

http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/encyclopaedia/hutchinson/m0008536.html
http://encyclopedia.worldvillage.com/s/b/Ostrich

There are so many sources, and why do we want to believe just a single source written in a book sometime is 400BC?
Perhaps nomad during that period just made their observation at night, and find that the male was doing the job, so they jumped to the conclusion that female ostrich is hardened against the young?

 

[greatcalgarian]

Job 39:13-17 Gavest thou the goodly wings unto the peacocks? or wings and feathers unto the ostrich? Which leaveth her eggs in the earth, and warmeth them in dust, And forgetteth that the foot may crush them, or that the wild beast may break them. She is hardened against her young ones, as though they were not hers: her labour is in vain without fear; Because God hath deprived her of wisdom, neither hath he imparted to her understanding.​

Lam. 4:3 Even the sea monsters draw out the breast, they give suck to their young ones: the daughter of my people is become cruel, like the ostriches in the wilderness.​

So what's at issue? Our Skeptic maintains that these passages perpetuate a legendary view of the ostrich as a bad parent. He says:

Reflected in this passage is a primitive, but incorrect, belief that the ostrich is a stupid bird that lays its eggs on the ground, leaves them to be hatched by the heat of the sand, and then treats her young harshly after they have hatched...Both Encyclopedia Americana and Britannica, as well as Grzimek's [sic] (vol 7, pp. 91-95), describe ostriches as very caring parents. The female lays her eggs on the ground, but so do many other species of birds. The eggs are not abandoned to the heat of the sand, but in the female's absence, the male incubates the nest. When the young hatch, they are given watchful care by their mother. As a biological creature, the ostrich has survived for thousands of years, so obviously it is a successful procreator. Its labor is not in vain, as the passage above incorrectly declares.


http://www.tektonics.org/lp/ostrich.html:162:

More from Christian point of view to refute the above

​

 

[greatcalgarian]

However, if a predator comes too close to them, the parents usually turn tail and run for their lives, leaving their young to fend for themselves. The Bible statement is proved true, for on these occasions the ostrich "does treat her sons roughly, as if not hers."—Job 39:16.

http://www.watchtower.org/library/g/1999/7/22/article_01.htm
The Watchtower appears to be more neutral towards Ostrich. However, is still guilty of misinterpreting to suit the bible verse. Note the above, saying the PARENTS run for their life (meaning both male and female), then immdiately said that the Bible may be correct as : "does treat HER sons roughly..."

 

[greatcalgarian]

http://www.nwf.org/internationalwildlife/ostrich.html

This page explained well the behavior of Ostrich (for successfully propagating the species generations after generations), and how the biblical time nomads misinterpreted all the behavior.