Biggest find in the history of paleontology

[mareese]

I am not heaven and earth. I am not the beginning of a species, which is what God states he created in those six days.

That's like saying we both could be pushed into a folder called atheism.
Except we both believe in God.

Not at all. Deism requires a god and a creation. It doesn't allow for evolution. Atheism does.

Yes I'm seeing how this is a semantics exercise. I enjoy that. It's a part of the discussion as interpretation was brought up, and semasiology must needs enter that picture, right?

 

[Mercury]

Originally posted by mareese:
I am not heaven and earth. I am not the beginning of a species, which is what God states he created in those six days.

In my Bible I just see the phrase "according to their kinds". Do you think that means that God created every kind of animal that reproduces after its own kind? If so, does that mean you believe poodles and Great Danes were created during the creation week, since they can't interbreed?

If you accept that breeds of dogs came later, then what is the problem with other speciation after the creation week? Can you point to a verse that states the limitation of post-creation activity with enough clarity to distinguish between allowing breeds of dogs but not allowing some wolves to speciate into dogs?

If you want to get into semantics, you need to show that the Bible is using the same semantics as you are. The Bible does not use the word "species".

Not at all. Deism requires a god and a creation. It doesn't allow for evolution. Atheism does.

Theism, deism and atheism can all accommodate evolution. Evolution isn't incompatible with creation -- only with certain ideas about how creation happened, such as young-earth creationism or spontaneous generation.

 

[Deacon]

Well thought out responses, Mercury! Very good.

Originally posted by Mercury:
Do you think that means that God created every kind of animal that reproduces after its own kind? If so, does that mean you believe poodles and Great Danes were created during the creation week, since they can't interbreed?

I never thought that poodles were REAL dogs anyway.

Rob

 

[mareese]

Mercury, did God create the poodle as is or did man interfere with natural selection and cause that breed within a species to survive?

I'm also interested in hearing your explanation for humans. Unless God evolved from an ape, it's rather hard to claim we were made in His image.
I didn't see an explanation in your Genesis rewrite on that one. What is the symbolism in that one?

 

[Mercury]

Thanks Deacon!

Mareese, I'd rather that this was more of a discussion instead of a question-and-answer session. That means that I'd like it if you'd also answer the questions I ask instead of you being the questioner and me being the answerer. I asked a few things in my last two posts about souls and kinds that you avoided. I think you did so because they show that your claims about creation are biblically unsupportable and contradictory to reality. Once you answer them, I'd be more than happy to answer any further questions you have about poodles.

Originally posted by mareese:
I'm also interested in hearing your explanation for humans. Unless God evolved from an ape, it's rather hard to claim we were made in His image. [...] What is the symbolism in that one?

What you've demonstrated here is one of the great dangers of the anti-evolution movement. In your zeal to disprove evolution, you've reasoned that God physically is just like a human being. Once again, you focus on getting physical details from a verse that is instead telling us something deeper. We do not physically look like God. To give just one example, God is omnipresent, while we have bodies that limit us to a single location. While God can certainly appear in the form of a man (such as the theophanies in the Old Testament), and God took human form in the person of Jesus, that does not mean that God's physical form is limited to our form.

Some verses (all of which I've already mentioned) that convey this truth are John 4:24, Psalm 139:7-10; Colossians 1:15, 1 John 4:12, Numbers 23:19 and Hosea 11:9. This makes it very clear that when Genesis 1:26 says "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness", it is speaking of something other than a physical likeness. I think it refers to our ability to reason and to have fellowship with God. Perhaps it also means that we, like God, have a spirit, and this distinguishes us from animals and plants. It may also refer to how we were created to be rulers over the rest of creation (again Genesis 1:26) which is a more limited form of God's reign over everything, including us.

But, even though there is discussion as to the exact nature of the "image of God", what is not in doubt is that it is not a claim that God is a biped mammal. The problem with your reasoning is that even if evolution were not true, it still results in a God that is physically indistinguishable from a human being. If that were all that God is, then he would not be worthy of our worship.

Put another way, if evolution requires a God evolved from an ape, does that mean young-earth creationism requires a God formed from dust?

 

[UTEOTW]

mareese

You avoided my question earlier. I'll make it more simple.

You and I disagree about the proper interpretation of the creation account. I assert that it is possible to examine God's creation to see which of us is correct. Do you accept or reject this assertion and why?

 

[mareese]

UTEOTW

I accept that assertion under the condition that we cannot accept the interpretation of an observation as fact if it disagrees with the written word.

 

[UTEOTW]

Then you do not accept the assertion because you think that any interpretation other than yours is not accepting the written word.

So I will put you down as a "No" in the category of whether the correct interpretation of the creation account can be gleaned from observations of the creation itself since you have declared a priori that yours is the only possible interpretation.

Please correct where I am wrong.

 

[mareese]

It is wrong because both the written and created word has to be taken into account when attempting to come to an accurate interpretation.

 

[Mercury]

Any answers to my above questions about souls and kinds, Mareese?

Here's a simpler question. If what you say about no new species coming into existence after the six days of creation is true, then on which day did God create all the species of thistles? Day three? Day six? Day eight?

I think Ute and others have demonstrated quite clearly that your interpretation is not compatible with creation itself. My point is that it is also incompatible with Scripture.

 

[mareese]

Originally posted by Mercury:
Thanks Deacon!

Mareese, I'd rather that this was more of a discussion instead of a question-and-answer session. That means that I'd like it if you'd also answer the questions I ask instead of you being the questioner and me being the answerer. I asked a few things in my last two posts about souls and kinds that you avoided. I think you did so because they show that your claims about creation are biblically unsupportable and contradictory to reality. Once you answer them, I'd be more than happy to answer any further questions you have about poodles.

I believe I did answer those questions.
I do have a tendency to reply in question form. I can try really hard not to, but it's very difficult as it's a lifetime habit. Answering in that manner accomplishes the task of both replying and of forcing a reply from the listener based directly on what one has said.
I do understand your reluctance though, as I myself freeze or simply give up when people discuss things with me in like manner, as it is possibly confusing.

When you asked if my soul was created I replied: God created my soul, and created humans to reproduce which resulted in my body.

When you asked me about kinds, via your comment about poodles, this was my reply in the form of a question:
Mercury, did God create the poodle as is or did man interfere with natural selection and cause that breed within a species to survive?

The reply was given under the assumption that you are familiar with the assertion of many yec's that natural selection may result in variations within a species, but for the most part what evolutionists define as new species are usually the result of unusual circumstances or forced selection within what still can be defined as one species, aka kind.

Originally posted by mareese:
[qb]I'm also interested in hearing your explanation for humans. Unless God evolved from an ape, it's rather hard to claim we were made in His image. [...] What is the symbolism in that one?

What you've demonstrated here is one of the great dangers of the anti-evolution movement. In your zeal to disprove evolution, you've reasoned that God physically is just like a human being. Once again, you focus on getting physical details from a verse that is instead telling us something deeper. We do not physically look like God. To give just one example, God is omnipresent, while we have bodies that limit us to a single location. While God can certainly appear in the form of a man (such as the theophanies in the Old Testament), and God took human form in the person of Jesus, that does not mean that God's physical form is limited to our form.

That is not true. Let us make man in our own image refers to man being created in God's image, a trinity. For man this meant body, soul, and mind. Evolution has something created, later developing a body and mind, and even later being given a soul. This isn't logical.

Some verses (all of which I've already mentioned) that convey this truth are John 4:24, Psalm 139:7-10; Colossians 1:15, 1 John 4:12, Numbers 23:19 and Hosea 11:9. This makes it very clear that when Genesis 1:26 says "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness", it is speaking of something other than a physical likeness. I think it refers to our ability to reason and to have fellowship with God. Perhaps it also means that we, like God, have a spirit, and this distinguishes us from animals and plants. It may also refer to how we were created to be rulers over the rest of creation (again Genesis 1:26) which is a more limited form of God's reign over everything, including us.

In the future will you please print the verses you refer to rather than simply giving their references? It helps things move along.

When did the dominion of man over the rest of creation happen? When they were given souls?
None of what you are stating is logical. You have painted a God who started the creation, said he finished it, and still isn't done. You have painted a God who said he made man in his own image to rule over earth but then waited billions of years for man to develop before he gave them souls, let alone dominion. Is that really logical?

But, even though there is discussion as to the exact nature of the "image of God", what is not in doubt is that it is not a claim that God is a biped mammal. The problem with your reasoning is that even if evolution were not true, it still results in a God that is physically indistinguishable from a human being. If that were all that God is, then he would not be worthy of our worship.

Of course there is more to God than the physical part of the Trinity. Do you really believe that any resemblence to humans would make HIM unworthy of your worship? Why? Do you think Jesus will be some unconceivable shape and form when we finally are able to offer him our praise for his gift to us? Are you also implying that Jesus wasn't raised up in an incorruptable body in the same form as a human man?
Was Jesus unworthy of worship because he was as one of us?

Put another way, if evolution requires a God evolved from an ape, does that mean young-earth creationism requires a God formed from dust?

No, because man didn't evolve or become man because of dust or the process of dust. He became man because of the work of God's hands and God's breath, unlike the evolutionary man whose development was dependent on a series of processes.

 

[mareese]

Originally posted by Mercury:
Any answers to my above questions about souls and kinds, Mareese?

Here's a simpler question. If what you say about no new species coming into existence after the six days of creation is true, then on which day did God create all the species of thistles? Day three? Day six? Day eight?

I think Ute and others have demonstrated quite clearly that your interpretation is not compatible with creation itself. My point is that it is also incompatible with Scripture.

Yes, they have been answered twice. Once before you posted this, and once WHILE you were posting this.
Species of thistles? There are no species, remember? There are kinds. All thistles belong in one kind of creation, with natural and manmade variations within the kind.

 

[Mercury]

Originally posted by mareese:
When you asked if my soul was created I replied: God created my soul, and created humans to reproduce which resulted in my body.

The trouble is that I didn't ask if your soul was created. My question was, "Did God create your soul during the creation week?" The question that you asked in response did not in any way imply an answer to my question.

When you asked me about kinds, via your comment about poodles, this was my reply in the form of a question:
Mercury, did God create the poodle as is or did man interfere with natural selection and cause that breed within a species to survive?

My question was, "Can you point to a verse that states the limitation of post-creation activity with enough clarity to distinguish between allowing breeds of dogs but not allowing some wolves to speciate into dogs?" A wordy question, I admit. Again, I do not see how your question in any way answers mine.

Species of thistles? There are no species, remember? There are kinds. All thistles belong in one kind of creation, with natural and manmade variations within the kind.

At the top of this page, you claimed "I am not the beginning of a species, which is what God states he created in those six days." That is why I used the word species -- I was intentionally using your terminology. In any case, you responded but did not answer my question. I'll rephrase it for you. On which day of creation was the thistle kind created?

I may respond to your other questions later. First, I'd like to find out what your position is on these questions.

 

[UTEOTW]

"It is wrong because both the written and created word has to be taken into account when attempting to come to an accurate interpretation."

But you are only allowing for the written part and only your interpretation of it at that. Remember what you said? "I accept that assertion under the condition that we cannot accept the interpretation of an observation as fact if it disagrees with the written word." You have basically said here that you do not need any stinkin' facts. If something disagrees with your interpretation, then you have defined it as incorrect. You are not open at all to the possibility that it could be your interpretation that is not correct.

If you look back a few pages, you wil find where you said "Part of the reason your views are being received with a degree of contempt by other parties is your seeming unwillingness to admit that you are not perfect and do not have all the answers or perhaps not even the best ones in all matters of science and faith." Yet here you are claiming for yourself the perfect interpretation with no need to even consider facts to the contrary.

A warning. When you have to start with the premise that anything that contradicts your view can be automatically excluded without cause, your view is likely on very shaky ground.

So, directly. Again. Are you now admitting that facts are irrelevant to your view? You are sure that you, a fallible man, have the right view on this and that anything that contradicts is by definition wrong? Observations that show either a young earth or an old earth, created "kinds" or common descent, have absolutely no bearing on what we should accept as the correct interpretation?

"There are no species, remember? There are kinds."

I find that an interesting statement. "There are no species." Could you define for us what a "kind" is? Tell us how you identify them. Tell us by what process a "kind" is able to produce the variations that dumb biologists call species. Tell us what process prevents a "kind" from varying right into what might be called a different kind.

 

[mareese]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
"It is wrong because both the written and created word has to be taken into account when attempting to come to an accurate interpretation."

But you are only allowing for the written part and only your interpretation of it at that. Remember what you said? "I accept that assertion under the condition that we cannot accept the interpretation of an observation as fact if it disagrees with the written word." You have basically said here that you do not need any stinkin' facts. If something disagrees with your interpretation, then you have defined it as incorrect. You are not open at all to the possibility that it could be your interpretation that is not correct.

I never stated that facts are irrelevant, only that facts must be seen as misinterpreted if they disagree with the Bible. There is an allowance for different interpretations in parts of the Bible, true, but the portions being described by the evolutionists on this board simply are not and the explanations of what those parts "truly" say aren't even logical and simply cannot and have not stood up to scrutiny over time.

If you look back a few pages, you wil find where you said "Part of the reason your views are being received with a degree of contempt by other parties is your seeming unwillingness to admit that you are not perfect and do not have all the answers or perhaps not even the best ones in all matters of science and faith." Yet here you are claiming for yourself the perfect interpretation with no need to even consider facts to the contrary.

I have considered the facts, and what you are seeing and hearing is the result of my conclusion. I don't exactly see a willingness on your part to seriously consider that your view may be the wrong one.

A warning. When you have to start with the premise that anything that contradicts your view can be automatically excluded without cause, your view is likely on very shaky ground.

That is an unfair accusation. Starting with the premise that anything contradictory to what God says must be excluded is not the same as insisting that what I say cannot be excluded.
You have consistently taken my statements and twisted them to mean something that was never stated.

So, directly. Again. Are you now admitting that facts are irrelevant to your view? You are sure that you, a fallible man, have the right view on this and that anything that contradicts is by definition wrong? Observations that show either a young earth or an old earth, created "kinds" or common descent, have absolutely no bearing on what we should accept as the correct interpretation?

Once again, I have never stated that observations and facts cannot be taken into account. I have stated that when the interpretation of observation conflicts with the Bible we must rethink the interpretation of the observation. Anyone can interpret the Bible in a way that fits their views, it's a relatively simple task. However, you cannot take plain and simple scripture, written and translated under the influence of the Holy Spirit, accepted and understood in a certain way for hundreds of years, and suddenly change the meaning of it and still have a clear conscience or a solid frame of reference to direct you in your research.

"There are no species, remember? There are kinds."

I find that an interesting statement. "There are no species." Could you define for us what a "kind" is? Tell us how you identify them. Tell us by what process a "kind" is able to produce the variations that dumb biologists call species. Tell us what process prevents a "kind" from varying right into what might be called a different kind.

I claimed species earlier in the thread. Mercury told me there aren't species mentioned in the Bible, only kinds, so this somewhat sarcastic comment made in reply was not to be taken as a serious statement of my views.
In other words, your question goes to Mercury.

 

[mareese]

Originally posted by Mercury:

Originally posted by mareese:
When you asked if my soul was created I replied: God created my soul, and created humans to reproduce which resulted in my body.

The trouble is that I didn't ask if your soul was created. My question was, "Did God create your soul during the creation week?" The question that you asked in response did not in any way imply an answer to my question.

I've never really thought about that. I'm quite sure that the answer is no, as the soul and body go together and are sin is the cause of the unnatural separation of the two by cause of death.
What does that have to do with creation though? God did not say that he created souls, especially not on any given day, but that by his breath was a soul imparted to Adam.

When you asked me about kinds, via your comment about poodles, this was my reply in the form of a question:
Mercury, did God create the poodle as is or did man interfere with natural selection and cause that breed within a species to survive?

My question was, "Can you point to a verse that states the limitation of post-creation activity with enough clarity to distinguish between allowing breeds of dogs but not allowing some wolves to speciate into dogs?" A wordy question, I admit. Again, I do not see how your question in any way answers mine.

Yes, the first chapter of Genesis, and the verses previously posted which state that God created the heaven and the earth and such in six days and then it was completed.

Species of thistles? There are no species, remember? There are kinds. All thistles belong in one kind of creation, with natural and manmade variations within the kind.

At the top of this page, you claimed "I am not the beginning of a species, which is what God states he created in those six days." That is why I used the word species -- I was intentionally using your terminology. In any case, you responded but did not answer my question. I'll rephrase it for you. On which day of creation was the thistle kind created?

There is no reason to believe thistles themselves were created, while there is good cause to believe that genetic changes were caused by God when sin occurred that brought about undesirable changes to the good things created.

I may respond to your other questions later. First, I'd like to find out what your position is on these questions.

That's very nice of you.

 

[Mercury]

Originally posted by mareese:
There is no reason to believe thistles themselves were created, while there is good cause to believe that genetic changes were caused by God when sin occurred that brought about undesirable changes to the good things created.

Okay, if you believe that, I have no idea why you were suggesting it is a problem that evolution claims new species came about after the creation days. After all, new species are just genetic changes that slowly cause one population of animals (or plants) to become distinct from another. Evidently, it isn't a problem to you if this sort of thing happens after the creation week.

This was the comment that started this rabbit trail:

You believe God is currently involved in creation, I believe God is currently involved with what he already created.

Evidently, you don't think that genetic modification is creation after all, so this particular difference between our beliefs vanishes.

Hey, I guess that's progress.

 

[Mercury]

Originally posted by mareese:
I claimed species earlier in the thread. Mercury told me there aren't species mentioned in the Bible, only kinds, so this somewhat sarcastic comment made in reply was not to be taken as a serious statement of my views.
In other words, your question goes to Mercury.

My apologies for missing the sarcasm. But, the question about defining the word "kind" is still something that only you (or other YECs) can deal with. My definition isn't the issue, since I'm not the one claiming a certain correspondence between biblical kinds and scientific classification systems.

 

[Mercury]

Okay, back to your earlier questions and comments.

Originally posted by mareese:
That is not true. Let us make man in our own image refers to man being created in God's image, a trinity. For man this meant body, soul, and mind. Evolution has something created, later developing a body and mind, and even later being given a soul. This isn't logical.

Some others think that God making both male and female the image of God corresponds to the Trinity. Just as two people united in marriage are one flesh, so too the persons of the Trinity are united while still being distinct persons. However, some of my married friends point out that, unlike the persons of the Trinity, the persons in a marriage do not have unity of thought and purpose. Still, I think this correspondence works better than body, soul and mind, since those aspects of you are not separate persons, as the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are.

In any case, I don't think anybody's in a position to be dogmatic about what exactly God's image consists of. My point was simply that it is not about our physical shape, and that seems to be something we mainly agree on. Both theistic evolutionists and young-earth creationists affirm that humanity shares the image of God, and whether we came from dirt or primates doesn't change that.

In the future will you please print the verses you refer to rather than simply giving their references? It helps things move along.

Sorry, I assumed you had easy access to a Bible. If you don't, just PM me with your address and I'll mail you one. In the meantime, you can quickly look up passages at [Bible Gateway].

You have painted a God who said he made man in his own image to rule over earth but then waited billions of years for man to develop before he gave them souls, let alone dominion. Is that really logical?

Can you point me to that painting? I don't remember ever saying that God made man billions of years before he gave them a soul. I would agree that what you've described there is not logical.

Do you really believe that any resemblance to humans would make HIM unworthy of your worship? Why?

If God's physical nature were no different than ours, then he would be unworthy of worship. Jesus is worthy of worship because he is the God-Man, having the nature of both humanity and God.

Do you think Jesus will be some unconceivable shape and form when we finally are able to offer him our praise for his gift to us?

He seems to have been recognizable to those he appeared to after his resurrection. Probably his heavenly form will be inconceivable to our current imagination in some ways but also very familiar. All I can do is speculate.

Are you also implying that Jesus wasn't raised up in an incorruptable body in the same form as a human man?

I think the resurrection body was in some ways the same and in some ways different. In any case, Jesus' resurrection body does not indicate the physical nature of the Trinity. God is Spirit.

Was Jesus unworthy of worship because he was as one of us?

No. But if he was only one of us and not also God, he would be unworthy of worship.

Anyone can interpret the Bible in a way that fits their views, it's a relatively simple task. However, you cannot take plain and simple scripture, written and translated under the influence of the Holy Spirit, accepted and understood in a certain way for hundreds of years, and suddenly change the meaning of it and still have a clear conscience or a solid frame of reference to direct you in your research.

So, I take it you still hold the traditional interpretation of the sun orbiting the earth instead of vice versa? After all, it was the plain and simple accepted and understood interpretation for hundreds of years, and then started to change when scientific evidence came out that it needed to be interpreted differently to jibe with reality.

For some parts of my own interpretation, I can look as far back as Augustine for support. He came to some of the same conclusions without any scientific reason to do so. On the other hand, the church's change in interpretation about all the passages that talk about the movement of the sun and fixed position of the earth was caused strictly by scientific evidence. Do [these guys] have the right approach?

 

[Travelsong]

Originally posted by Mercury:
Some others think that God making both male and female the image of God corresponds to the Trinity. Just as two people united in marriage are one flesh, so too the persons of the Trinity are united while still being distinct persons. However, some of my married friends point out that, unlike the persons of the Trinity, the persons in a marriage do not have unity of thought and purpose.

Picture a triangle with God at the top and husband and wife at the bottom corners. What happens if the husband and wife do have unity of purpose? Of course, I believe that's not the whole picture but it is accurate. Raising children seems a fundamental part of the equation which definately gives us another dimension to work with.