So why was the Creation thread closed?

[Revmitchell]

RevMitchell, you and I agree more than you realize!

Obviously, presented with a dead body that is resurrected three days later GOOD science would conclude resurrection is not only possible but observable. Only JUNK science would discard the data. God did NOT ask people to "just have faith Jesus rose." Rather, Jesus appeared to many and provided Thomas with empirical evidence. That should lead science to question why it was observed once, but is not regularly occurring. Science will tell the unbeliever Jesus was unique. Theology then can come in to explain "the rest of the story."

In the same way, IF (and this is a huge if, bear in mind) science were to present us with undeniable proof that the earth is billions of years old, that would not disprove Genesis but rather only disprove faulty understandings of Genesis.

Miracles are miracles BECAUSE they are suspensions of the laws of nature. No laws of nature=no miracles.

We don't have to be afraid of science--only of false science. False science would tell me the universe "just happened."

It is entirely possible to accept Genesis and not be young earth creationist.

This is a false dichotomy being set up: EITHER you accept science or the Bible.

The truth is many of us accept both.

Just as I believe the Bible teaches God looks on the motives an intents of the heart, and science tells me a heart surgeon deals with the physically beating organ located in the chest, I believe Genesis tells me of a real Creator who created a real physical universe, this planet, and put two specific people--Adam and Eve--upon it. But nowhere does it specify an exact date for doing that. We can guess from geneologies, but the careful student will note they are sometimes compressed. So we know for sure God did it, just not how and when.

I am more in the 6 to 15000 year arena as far as the date. But I do not get dogmatic on that issue. The Billions of years is claimed but not proven. Evolution is a theory not a proven fact. That goes for dating.

We do know how God did it He made it clear in Genesis. And what is clear is that is science conflicts with scripture then what has actually happened is that the scientific data has been misinterpreted.

The “data” are not overwhelmingly in favor of evolution. It is the interpretation of some of the observable data, based on naturalistic (i.e. anti-supernatural), uniformitarian assumptions, that gives the impression to the undiscerning that evolution is overwhelmingly proven to be scientific fact. In reality, the fossils, natural selection, and mutations stand absolutely opposed to the myth of molecules-to-man evolution. Rather, they stand powerfully in confirmation of the literal truth of Genesis that God created distinct kinds of plants and animals to reproduce “after their kinds” and that He created Adam literally from dust (not from a pre-existing ape-like creature) and Eve literally from the side of Adam.


http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2010/04/15/seminary-prof-resigns-pro-evolution

 

[Jedi Knight]

More like fundies start with a preconceived notion that they have a corner on truth, and anything that varies from their narrow interpretations are false, no matter what studying God's own creation reveals. If the Bible said that clouds are made out of frogs, that's what they would cling to.

And you are a Baptist with this mocking of Christians "fundies" ? If your not a Baptist what are you doing posing here??

 

[Peggy]

I'm not sure how not believing in a literal 6 day creation equates with disbelieving the Resurrection.

What is important about Genesis is not that God "created the world in 6 days", but that God existed before the world was made, that he made the world out of nothing, his goodness, his power, and the creation of man in God's image.

The Genesis account is not and never was intended to be a scientific explanation for the beginning of the world. Rather, it reveals religious truth about God and man's origins.

Thanks to scientific advances in all fields, we know much more about the earth than we did even 100 years ago, let alone 4000 years ago. Why can we accept advances in medicine but not in geology? The world is telling us how it was made. Astronomy allows us to peek back in time to the birth of galaxies. The heavens declare the glory of God. Yet some people want to hold on to the way their ancestors and the ancestors of their ancestors believed in the creation of the world. It's as primitive as Native American stories about creation.

The Bible does not contradict evolutionary creationism because the Bible is not a scientific textbook, but a religious book about God's revelation to man.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

And you are a Baptist with this mocking of Christians "fundies" ? If your not a Baptist what are you doing posing here??

Being a Baptist does not have to equal being a fundamentalist. Yes, I am a Baptist. How about you?

 

[Revmitchell]

The Genesis account is not and never was intended to be a scientific explanation for the beginning of the world.

And yet when it speaks on what man has deemed as scientific issues it is true and correct every time.

 

[annsni]

I'm not sure how not believing in a literal 6 day creation equates with disbelieving the Resurrection.

What is important about Genesis is not that God "created the world in 6 days", but that God existed before the world was made, that he made the world out of nothing, his goodness, his power, and the creation of man in God's image.

The Genesis account is not and never was intended to be a scientific explanation for the beginning of the world. Rather, it reveals religious truth about God and man's origins.

Thanks to scientific advances in all fields, we know much more about the earth than we did even 100 years ago, let alone 4000 years ago. Why can we accept advances in medicine but not in geology? The world is telling us how it was made. Astronomy allows us to peek back in time to the birth of galaxies. The heavens declare the glory of God. Yet some people want to hold on to the way their ancestors and the ancestors of their ancestors believed in the creation of the world. It's as primitive as Native American stories about creation.

The Bible does not contradict evolutionary creationism because the Bible is not a scientific textbook, but a religious book about God's revelation to man.

Yet fundamentally, there is a great contrast:

In evolution, death is vital. It is the reason for evolution.

In creation, death is non-existent. Death does not occur until sin.

So if one believes in theistic evolution, when did death and sin enter the world? Before man. That is completely in conflict with all of Scripture.

 

[matt wade]

I'm not sure how not believing in a literal 6 day creation equates with disbelieving the Resurrection.

Once again, you dodge the questions. In you case these two are very important and relate very closely. Your claim is that a literal 6 day creation is false because science has proved it otherwise. Science has also proved that someone can't be raised from the dead.

Here's the question. Please try and answer it. How is it that you believe God in one case, but not the other?

 

[Pastor Larry]

It is entirely acceptable and logical to accept both Genesis 1 and 2, which differ with each other,

No they don't. You need to go back and study some more.

God does not lie. So we have to accept both what the Bible teaches, and what He shows us in creation, since even the heavens declare the glory of God, according to His Word.

Exactly. But the word is propositional and infallible. Scientific interpretation of the creation is not.

It is, in my mind, insulting to hint or teach that God would design the universe purposely to mislead us just to see if we would accept His Word over what our eyes see.

This is very true. There is no reason, biblical or scientific, to believe that God designed the universe to mislead anyone.

Good theology and accurate science will not disagree.

Again, absolutely true. Good theology and accurate science both point to a young earth. There are many scientific problems to be sure. Neither evolutionists nor creationists can solve them. We simply don't have the knowledge or the tools. So we need to be humble. We need to sit in judgment on Scripture. We need to embrace what God has said.

 

[saturneptune]

Again, absolutely true. Good theology and accurate science both point to a young earth. There are many scientific problems to be sure. Neither evolutionists nor creationists can solve them. We simply don't have the knowledge or the tools. So we need to be humble. We need to sit in judgment on Scripture. We need to embrace what God has said.

It is good to see you, Pastor Larry. I have not seen your posts since getting over the operation. I totally argee with a six day Creation and young earth. I do have one question for you? How old do you think the earth is, and what was the period the dinosaurs were here?

 

[Peggy]

Once again, you dodge the questions. In you case these two are very important and relate very closely. Your claim is that a literal 6 day creation is false because science has proved it otherwise. Science has also proved that someone can't be raised from the dead.

Here's the question. Please try and answer it. How is it that you believe God in one case, but not the other?

Matt, I will try to type reaalllly slllooowwwllly so you can understand. I'm kind of tired of repeating myself.

The creation account is not a scientific account of the beginning of the world.
The point of the creation story is that there is a God who created the world.
The creation story was there to make sense to primitive peoples to tell them about the true God as opposed to the false gods of the pagans.
Science - particularily the fields of geology and astronomy (won't even get into biology) has definitively proven not only that the earth revolves around the sun, but that the earth and the universe are far, far older than 6000 years old.

The Resurrection is a real event that took place in real time with real witnesses.

It is very easy to believe in the Resurrection and to disbelieve a literal 6 day creation.

 

[Revmitchell]

but that the earth and the universe are far, far older than 6000 years old.

The Resurrection is a real event that took place in real time with real witnesses.

This is completely false and evolution is a theory not fact.

 

[Revmitchell]

Theistic evolution assigns death to God and makes it part of the process of creation. This presents a false idea of God's nature. It completely distorts the creations account and the fall of man. In theistic evolutionary theory death comes long before man. Such nonsense is heresy.

 

[Jedi Knight]

Theistic evolution assigns death to God and makes it part of the process of creation. This presents a false idea of God's nature. It completely distorts the creations account and the fall of man. In theistic evolutionary theory death comes long before man. Such nonsense is heresy.

Amen,This is the whole point.

 

[Jedi Knight]

Being a Baptist does not have to equal being a fundamentalist. Yes, I am a Baptist. How about you?

Baptist fundamentally believe the scriptures.

 

[Pastor Larry]

The creation account is not a scientific account of the beginning of the world.
The point of the creation story is that there is a God who created the world.

Isn't this kind of missing the point, no pun intended? If God had wanted to tell people only that there is a God who created the world (something self-evident, by the way), then God could have stopped after Gen 1:1. But he didn't. He went on to tell us some things about the creation that go far beyond God creating the world. I think your position needs to answer why all the other information is there if God only intended to communicate to primitive people that he exists and created the world.

Exod 20 and the Sabbath day command tells us at least part of the reason and that is to set a pattern for man. Again, that is something you seem to be minimizing. An old earth theory makes little sense in light of Exod 20. God would be saying, "Work for six really long periods of time and then rest for a really long period of time because that's what I did." Yet we all understand Exod 20 to be talking about a seven day week of twenty-four hour days. It's not that hard.

Science - particularily the fields of geology and astronomy (won't even get into biology) has definitively proven not only that the earth revolves around the sun, but that the earth and the universe are far, far older than 6000 years old.

Again, that's simply not true. I won't dispute older than 6000 years, but the idea of millions of years has not been proven by science, and you know that. Most scientists acknowledge that they are working in realms of theory and conjecture. You probably know that.

The Resurrection is a real event that took place in real time with real witnesses.

So is creation.

It is very easy to believe in the Resurrection and to disbelieve a literal 6 day creation.

There's no doubt that it is easy. But it is not consistent. You are applying different standards to the issues. You are treating similar issues differently.

And here's a major difference: There are valid scientific explanations for young earth creationism (and severe problems with old earth theories). There are no valid scientific explanations for a resurrection from the dead.

So you reject that which is scientifically supportable and accept that which is not scientifically supportable. And that may be "easy" but it is not consistent.

Peggy, have you read Coming to Grips with Genesis?

 

[Magnetic Poles]

This is completely false and evolution is a theory not fact.

This statement makes it clear that you do not understand what the word "theory" means in a scientific context.

 

[Pastor Larry]

How old do you think the earth is, and what was the period the dinosaurs were here?

Probably not six thousand years old; my best guess is 8-12,000 years. The scientific evidence is consistent with that, as is the biblical record. Dinosaurs would have lived in the antediluvian age, and probably died out shortly after the flood. Again, there's no scientific reason to think differently.

 

[Revmitchell]

This statement makes it clear that you do not understand what the word "theory" means in a scientific context.

Yea you keep repeating this but it doesn't add up to much.

 

[Dr. Bob]

This is completely false and evolution is a theory not fact.

Evolution is NOT even at the level of "theory". It is an unproven and unprovable "hypothesis".

With such, there is no prove given, so the scientific method must simply rely on "models" - IF such would have happened, THEN . . .

When put on that footing, the creation model is far superior to any evolutionary model.

 

[HankD]

The church sure fought to perserve the geocentric view of of the universe as a Bible taught theory until it was proven by science beyond a shadow of a doubt that the earth revolves around the sun.

I think the same thing will happen today. People will fight tooth and nail to perserve the idea of a literal 6 day creation until they are forced to admit that the universe is, in fact, billions of years old.

Willl that cause people to lose their faith? Did people lose their faith when it was proved that the earth revolves around the sun? Or does it just mean that we need not be afraid of the truth, because God is Truth and truth will not contradict faith. Truth makes your position stronger and enhances your faith.

Fighting for the anti-intellectual idea that the earth was created in 6 literal days just makes us look foolish in the eyes of the unsaved that we are trying to reach for Jesus.

Heliocentrism did not kill Christianity. Neither will evolutionary creationism.

Hi Peggy,

Personally, I have no big problem with regenerated Christians who endorse cereative evolution but please state the proof including the evidence that the universe is billions of years old. I agree that it has that appearance.

Jesus created wine in a moment that was mature wine.

Mature wine normally takes several years to produce (plant the vine, cultivate the vine, let the vine mature, harvest the grapes, squeeze the grapes, ferment the juice, bring it to market, etc).

God created Adam a mature man in one day.

God created a mature universe in 6 days.

How is that anti-intellectual?

What to me is anti-intellectual is that according to the wisdom of this world the universe came out of something called the "singularity" which although it had "no dimensions (0 dimensions muchless 3) " it had infinite mass - a Big Nothing.

It had "no coordinates" - it was Nowhere.

No outside force acted upon it, yet it exploded.

So Nothing out of Nowhere exploded and became Everything.

That's anti-intellectual.

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.​

That's God's truth.

Then there is the "Primordial Soup" theory, a deadly toxic soup of methane ammonia and hydrogen cyanide at incredible heat spontaneously generated the building blocks of life "on the backs of crystals".
Then there was a bolt of lightning and Mr. and Mrs Thallophyta (oops wait they were asexual) crawled out of the slow-cooker and eventually became you and I.

That's anti-intellectual.

Genesis 1

26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.​

This is the truth which glorifies the Trinity.​

We cannot have it both ways.

Even as a Christian if you say sin and death did not follow after the creation of Adam and death entered the world as the result of his sin then that makes the word of God a lie and God a l--r.

Christians who believe in creative evolution must of necessity believe that Adam (or whoever/whatever) was the product of the death and decay of all the species which preceded him (whoever/whatever he was).

Genesis 2

7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.​

Peggy, some advice my sister in Christ - choose the better way.
So what if we look foolish and the intellectual world scoffs? It's part of their job-description.​

HankD​