Was Jesus a Creationist?

[Meatros]

I submit that the extant evidence answers "only insofar as their genetic variation allows, and always around a genetic mean and never far from it

How far is that, and what stops it?

My response to that is 'nonsense!' Ostriches may come with different variations, but they are always ostriches! Redwood trees to not become carrots. Clams to not evolve into butterflies. Kinds stay what they are, despite variations.

Please define "kinds".

So please do not try to confuse the issue by claiming that evolution only means 'things change.' No one is arguing that point!

Then people should be more specific instead of lumping everything together. Evolution is, plain and simple: "Evolution is a change in the gene pool of a population over time. A gene is a hereditary unit that can be passed on unaltered for many generations. The gene pool is the set of all genes in a species or population."
Introduction to evolutionary biology.

And yes, your posts alone show you are in an awkward position. You are trying to redefine the argument to a matter of simple change.

I think my point flew above your head on both matters. I was trying to show you that your 'lumping everyone together' was based on your perception of what evolution is and means.

What you are telling me is that even the truth about God is something you are not willing to stand up for.

Yes, I do define that as an awkward position for someone who says he is a believer!

That's not what I'm telling you at all. What I'm telling you is I'm not going to force my beliefs down other peoples throats and I'm not going to insist that I am the ultimate authority on God, which is what you are trying to do.

Ah, but you are not out for catching flies. You are not even willing to disagree with these folk! You seem to have put yourself in a position of just trying to live peacefully with the flies.

Personally, the truth is too important for me not to stand up for.

Please reread what I have written. I stated: "I'd disagree with them, not try to reinterpret their beliefs."
Which goes directly against your false assertion that I do not disagree with 'these folk'.
I like the little rhetoric at the end, but it doesn't give you the right to dictate what other people believe.

and this from young adults in their twenties who have been led into confusion by those in authority who have taught them to doubt the Bible.

Which does nothing to support the faith they should have. They are putting their faith into your husband's version of science and not in the bible/God.

It is the truth that is important, and I will present that to the best of my ability whenever I can.

So why are you presenting this 'truth' on a message board instead of trying to change what you believe to be false science?

In the meantime, simply by asking me that question, you are showing me that you are in with that entire crowd which has managed to follow me around from forum to forum for about five years now.

Assumptions. I actually don't think I've ever run into you on another forum. If I have, please point it out to me.

Please, think for yourself. Ask questions for yourself. Please be more concerned about the truth than about other people. Other people cannot save you, no matter who they are.

I totally agree with you here, and I ask that you follow your own advice. All my questions have been straight from 'me' and not as part of the conspiracy that seems to follow you around.

No, I think they are too trapped/deceived/blind. Either/or/and.

Again, if your such the expert why are you wasting time on message boards? Why not put your skills to use and tackle science head on in the form of peer-reviewed journals? I don't claim to know whether or not all (or even most) creationists are wrong-I just haven't agreed with any I've run across (well, lately, I mean I used to be one, so...).

The evolution you are standing up for is a lie.

Easy to say.

Where your heart is, that is between you and God. However the definer of Christianity is Jesus, and the definition is clear in the Bible. Christians are born-again followers of Christ Jesus, our Lord and God.

I totally agree with all of this.

One cannot be un-born from that place of salvation in Him. If one is a Christian and then comes to believe evolution is true, he may have been conned into believing a lie, but that is not something that threatens his salvation.

Alright, perhaps I was a little too rushed. Forgive me for misinterpreting you.

 

[The Galatian]

It's incomprehensible how anyone can assume that a scientific theory, especially one that was brought forth by two men who were Christians at the time, could be based in a "rebellion against God". Indeed, since evolution is the way God does things in this world, He would have to be rebelling against Himself.

But this is one belief that Helen will cling to regardless of the evidence. If pushed she will admit that Christians who accept evolution don't really do so to rebell against God.

 

[samuelhenry]

i would like to ask a few questions if i may, because i have never had any deep discussions with theistic-evolutionists about their beliefs. do you believe in the worldwide flood as recorded in genesis? do you believe in the biblical account of adam and his descendants?
what parts of the bible do you not believe? and also, how do you personally believe that life began on this planet? i would much appreciate your answers, as i am not entirely certain what the thiestic-evolution standpoint is.
thank you

 

[samuelhenry]

"Indeed, since evolution is the way God does things in this world..."
also if The Galatian would care to explain this.
if it is saying what i think it is, it is quite laughable (poor God up there in Heaven with no way to do anything without the use of evolution).
however i may have failed to grasp the true meaning. sorry if i did.

 

[The Galatian]

i would like to ask a few questions if i may, because i have never had any deep discussions with theistic-evolutionists about their beliefs. do you believe in the worldwide flood as recorded in genesis?

The Ark story is allegorical, not literal. We know this, because it would be impossible to bring in every kind of animal on an Ark that size, among other things.

do you believe in the biblical account of adam and his descendants?

There had to be a first human with an immortal soul, regardless of how God chose to make it happen. Of course there was an Adam. The geneologies are not possible, since humans have been on the planet a lot longer than 10,000 years.

what parts of the bible do you not believe?

All of the books of the Bible are true. There are certainly details that someone got wrong, such as pi being 3 and grasshoppers with four legs. But those are incidental errors, and have no bearing on what the Bible tells us.

and also, how do you personally believe that life began on this planet?

In Genesis, God says that the earth and waters brought forth living things. Scientists are just beginning to realize that's right.

i would much appreciate your answers, as i am not entirely certain what the thiestic-evolution standpoint is.

It's just orthodox Christianity.

Barbarian observes:
"Indeed, since evolution is the way God does things in this world..."

also if The Galatian would care to explain this.

God does almost everything in this world by natural means. As the early Christians observed, some sort of evolution was necessary to be consistent with His creation. We can observe this going on, with new species evolving from old, and abundant evidence in the fossil record and in the genetics and molecules of living things. God is a great deal more amazing and powerful than creationists realize.

if it is saying what i think it is, it is quite laughable (poor God up there in Heaven with no way to do anything without the use of evolution).

One might as well say "Poor God up there in Heaven with no way to do anything, than make his creatures one at a time". It seems to me that God is able to do it any way He wants, but chose nature to do His will here.

however i may have failed to grasp the true meaning. sorry if i did.

A Christian should never be afraid of the truth. If you accept that, then you will find the journey easier.

 

[A_Christian]

I beg to disagree. I feel all the animals needed
to establish the animal kingdom as it presently
exists, could be placed on the ark. The Bible
is about common observations and not scientific
calculations (cubits and not meters). The Bible
is not about fables unless it is presented as
as one.

 

[Barnabas H.]

johndcal's question: "Was Jesus a Creationist?" is pretty interesting. But for Bible believing Christians (and this is a Baptist discussion board) there can be no misunderstanding about the role of Jesus in creation - for He is the Creator! We ascertain this from the gospel of John, in 1:1-3 & 14, as shown below:

1 In the beginning was the Word [Jesus], and the Word [Jesus] was with God, and the Word [Jesus] was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him [Jesus]; and without him [Jesus]was not any thing made that was made. 14 And the Word [Jesus] was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his [Jesus] glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

 

[The Galatian]

Orthodox Christians think God is the creator, too. Creationism is not the same as believing in His creation.

We just know a few more of the details.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Originally posted by A_Christian:
I beg to disagree. I feel all the animals needed
to establish the animal kingdom as it presently
exists, could be placed on the ark. The Bible
is about common observations and not scientific
calculations (cubits and not meters). The Bible
is not about fables unless it is presented as
as one.

Hi, AC! Its a matter of evidence. There isn't any evidence of a world wide flood in the past 10,000 years.

And all you have to do is interpret the "world" of Noah to be the world as it was known in his day to him. This is a perfectly defensible position.

 

[samuelhenry]

Quote: "There isn't any evidence of a world wide flood in the past 10,000 years."
so, how do you account for the finding of seashells and fish skeletons on the peaks of some of the taller mountains? or the fairly recent find of the fossilized remains of the two velociraptors locked in battle (one was in the act of clawing the other in the chest)? and the discovery of a fish skeleton stuck half in one layer of rock and half in another? all three of these are well documented finds (and not by young earth creationists, by the way). and there are more.

 

[samuelhenry]

and about the whole "animals not being able to fit into the ark" thing. does anybody really believe that they were all full grown animals? and that there were nearly as many species variations as there are today? there were most likely a great deal fewer species than there are today. things do evolve. it seems that it would be quite possible to fit two of every species (not of every species AND all of the variations of that species) into the ark. and do notice that the bible never says they were full grown. i'm sure God isn't that stupid. he would know if every species was going to fit. and it's not as if humpback whales were expected to go into the ark as well.

 

[Edgeo]

Originally posted by samuelhenry:
Quote: "There isn't any evidence of a world wide flood in the past 10,000 years."

so, how do you account for the finding of seashells and fish skeletons on the peaks of some of the taller mountains?

Plate tectonics. Hey, it works!

or the fairly recent find of the fossilized remains of the two velociraptors locked in battle (one was in the act of clawing the other in the chest)? and the discovery of a fish skeleton stuck half in one layer of rock and half in another? all three of these are well documented finds (and not by young earth creationists, by the way). and there are more.

Since they are well-documented, perhaps you could do so for us. We cannot evaluate what you are saying without some reference to the actual evidence. I suppose I could make some vague refutation, but that wouldn't be very satisfactory to any of us.

 

[samuelhenry]

i will attempt to gather the information as quickly as possible : ) the one about the velociraptors was in national geographic i believe.
also, would you say that the fossils of the fish and shells were formed prior to the mountains? because it required a great deal of pressure to make the fish fossilize before completely deteriorating. if so, how many years took place in between the fossilization and the mountains? i have only heard vague or illogical explanations of this. and one more thing. do you think man evolved from a lower life form? because there have been no findings of multiple missing links. there have only been a few supposed discoveries that are far from convincing. there should be quite a few not-quite-human-yet skeletons around here somewhere, for it took so many years to evolve. i have never heard this explained well either. perhaps you have the logical and scientific explaination. i would be very grateful. : )

 

[Edgeo]

Originally posted by samuelhenry:
i will attempt to gather the information as quickly as possible : ) the one about the velociraptors was in national geographic i believe.

It would be interesting, but I'm not sure what it has to do with evolution or an old earth.

also, would you say that the fossils of the fish and shells were formed prior to the mountains?

Exactly. It is the only way to explain the geometry of the fossil beds with respect to topography.

because it required a great deal of pressure to make the fish fossilize before completely deteriorating.

Well, there you are. They were first buried and then later uplifted to their current positons.

if so, how many years took place in between the fossilization and the mountains?

Depends on the age of the strata and the age of the mountain range.

i have only heard vague or illogical explanations of this.

Reading some websites is pretty unsatisfactory, I'm sure you agree.

and one more thing. do you think man evolved from a lower life form?

Yes, it is the best explanation of the data that we have.

because there have been no findings of multiple missing links. there have only been a few supposed discoveries that are far from convincing.

I think the record might be richer than you think and, regardless, even with scattered data, we still have to explain what we know.

there should be quite a few not-quite-human-yet skeletons around here somewhere, for it took so many years to evolve. i have never heard this explained well either. perhaps you have the logical and scientific explaination. i would be very grateful.

Sure. There are several reasons a fossil species might be rare. First of all, the preservation of terrestrial animals is a very chancey thing. I think Galatian has a lot of information on hominid fossils and he would be much more knowledgable than I on this subject.

 

[johndcal]

My, what intense feelings I've aroused!

It's simple in a way. Evolution and astronomy are fact. The deity of Jesus and salvation are fact. This leads to logical conclusions that many find very difficult to discern and accept.

What is a secondary issue, though (not essential to salvation)? See "Right With God" at Faith & Reason Ministries, http://www.faithreason.org/

BTW, I do very much like the beginning of the gospel of John. It is a level of understanding without false presumption of detail.

 

[Deacon]

Hi Johndcal, I wasn't sure we'd be hearing from you again. I'd like to hear more about your views. Come and visit with us down here in the Baptist Board basement now and then.

Brother Rob

 

[A_Christian]

Varation within kind is fact (I don't look exactly
like you and you don't look exactly like me, and
twins don't behave exactly the same).

To suggest that creation didn't happen the way
the Bible says is to call into question the Flood.
To call the Flood into question is to say Noah
never needed to build the ark. To call the ark
into question is to call Jesus Christ a LIAR.
LIARS are sinners, therefore Jesus saves no one.

You also distroy GOD's dispensations. GOD
expected certain things from Adam. Then GOD
expected certain things form Noah. Then GOD
expected certain things from Abraham. Presently,
GOD expects us to trust in Jesus----the fulfillment of the Law.

Will there be a rapture of the CHURCH? It is
ONLY found in the BIBLE. Can you trust it?

Jesus will return again with HIS CHURCH to
rule the world for 1000 years. It is ONLY found
in the BIBLE. Will you accept it?

The world that was judged by water will be judged
by fire. It is found ONLY in the Bible. Can
you believe it?

You see EVERYTHING in the BIBLE hinges on
EVERYTHING else. You can not be a pick and
choose believer. You will surely have second
thooughts about your salvation and become LUKE
WARM.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Rom 14:4
4 Who are you to judge the servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls; and stand he will, for the Lord is able to make him stand.
NAS

 

[The Galatian]

Creationism denies Genesis. Creation of life ex nihilo is directly contradicted by Scripture.

However, one should always be careful to remember that one's particular interpretation of God's word is not God's word.

That is not the way to Him.

 

[A_Christian]

Paul of Eugene:

Christians are NEVER to rely on THEIR own opinions
nor their own logic nor their schooling to
judge another. The Bible is what Christian are
to use as the foundation of godly judgement
through the interpretation given by the Holy Spirit through prayer. The Word of God IS the
ONLY standard for judging the "works" of another.

You judge the Bible and Creationists through
YOUR "scientific" knowledge. I am to point out
to you, that as a Christian, your faith must
rest on the Word of God and NOT with the logic
of men.

God's Word is but man's logic changes to suit
the situation and is self-centered and corrupt.
Even your scientific knowledge is incomplete
and is bias.