My position explained

Pertaining to my recent topic, concerning my creationsim - I have a few statements concerning my full and true position, which might have been misconstrued as a major change back to YECism.This is not the case. My unique creationism position is as follows;I do not hold that the earth is 6 thousand years old due to the fact that light reaches us from the universe - after milions of years travelling at the speed of light. And so I accept that the universe is old, but do not dismiss the literal possibilities pertaining to the six days of creation. Nevertheless, God doesn't specifically say the earth is six thousand years old - even when scriptures are taken literally. And the genealogy can refer to humans only.Six literal days is still a major possibility, but I think they are undefined periods of time, because God is not affected by time.Also - the "possibilities" in Genesis do not require that I dissasociate myself fully from the science of the ToE. Yet the implicative atheistic/nihilistic conclusion of many, shall be swiftly a no go area for me, as that is totally against my beliefs - and the truth of the bible.Genesis says; And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle and creeping thing........So this means I leave the door open to the possibility that God "let the earth" produce animals via evolution, and so - I accept evolution is one possibility of how this happened. But I do not think humans were brought forth like this - and also the text indicates that God supernaturally created magnificent creatures, ex nihilo. And so - I am more against abiogenesis, and the part of the evolution theory which says all life is from a common ancestor. I think there is a possibility that all this evolution evidence is because of God letting the earth bring forth life as reffered to in Genesis. Some natural answer which says there is no intelligent designer - is unnaceptable. I completely disregard this.I hope this fully shows my true position, and clears up any confusion about me trying to get attention. I am certainly against the traditional bleak and purposeless picture - evolutionistic, atheistic, nihilistics paint. Ofcourse - I talk of militant atheists obviously. But I hope you can see that I believe in the scripture, and so any picture that painsts such things against the truth of the bible, cannot be accepted because of my belief.As for how death came to be - well, I do think natural biological death for animals was in place, as God intended destination eternity for humans. However, animals would not have killed before the fall, and before sin entered. They would have just died naturally when their time had been completed. So animals - for biological usefulness, and as a creation - were still meant to live - just not forever. Yet killing organisms would post-date the fall.This means animals would live possibly for millions of years, after the earth "brought them forth". And them producing after their kind indicates mortality.(I suppose this isn't an important topic, more of a topic to be read, I suggest cofeehouse maybe?)

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

I thought you had just been trying to stir the pot as you had in the past. I am sort of sad to see this is not the case.What you said about the current state of your belief is not without merit. There is the possibility of day-age issues expanding the timeline of the creation of earth and creatures. I thought it was also interesting to use "let the earth bring forth" to mean evolution could be true.I would only note that letting the earth bring forth could also indicate abiogenesis. That is he commanded that the conditions be met on earth for abiogenesis to occur. I don't see how one would be able to tell the difference between that and actually making life occur (from our vantage point).What I think is sad to hear is repeated commentary such as this: and This sounds like, you are wrong I am right, keep talking but I will stick my fingers in my ears. That you won't accept arguments because of a prechosen position is possible, but not very intellectual or reasonable. It certainly has nothing to do with scientific approaches, or even theological approaches... merely willful ignorance.It also hands out the sad, tired stereotype of bleakness and purposelessness to those who do not believe in your diety and/or in evolution as a blind mechanism for speciation. Frankly that theory cannot be accepted as it is untrue.So you simultaneously say it is no use talking to you, and that anyone that disgrees is destitute in some capacity. Nice work.Of course in all of this you skipped right over the other theological discussions which bring the possibility of science to be accepted. That is that there are other claims made in the Bible which have been proven untrue. Why are you cutting slack for some but not other passages? This makes no sense. Haven't you read ecclesiastes? It says you cannot make such claims regarding animals. Now you are actively defying wisdom directly imparted by the Bible.Sad, this is all a very sad turn.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Mike... no one cares. Seriously, your belief is totally your business. Go ahead and believe whatever you want. Believe that a giant three-uddered cow with the wings of an eagle squirted cosmic milk into the swirling void if it'll make you happy.The thing is, hearing about faith is like hearing about dreams, or sexual fantasies, or drug trips. It's no doubt all sorts of profound if it's your own. But hearing someone else's is just kind of boring.What does rankle the folks around here is the way in which you've gone about proclaiming your faith. You've been going about it by means of accusing others. Rather than say "this is what I believe, take it or leave it," you've been running around telling everyone what we're doing that's turned you off to evolution. More often than not, what you tell us we've been doing couldn't be further from the truth. (Such as "you're trying to make me choose between God and the BBC" or "you're saying life is just random chance".) When we correct you, and tell you what we've actually been saying, you ignore it, and continue to repeat your accusations.So in summation... believe whatever you please, and don't feel you have to base it in anything resembling a fact. But if you're going to talk about what we say and believe, you need to have your facts straight.

quote:

---

Also - the "possibilities" in Genesis do not require that I dissasociate myself fully from the science of the ToE. Yet the implicative atheistic/nihilistic conclusion of many, shall be swiftly a no go area for me, as that is totally against my beliefs - and the truth of the bible.

---

I agree. No one should use the ToE as a basis for constructing a worldview. Many theistic evolutionists look at the evolution of man through evolution as a wonderous miracle. The ToE does not require one to become an atheist and take a bleak outlook on life.

quote:

---

So this means I leave the door open to the possibility that God "let the earth" produce animals via evolution, and so - I accept evolution is one possibility of how this happened. But I do not think humans were brought forth like this - and also the text indicates that God supernaturally created magnificent creatures, ex nihilo. And so - I am more against abiogenesis, and the part of the evolution theory which says all life is from a common ancestor.

---

I'm still a bit confused. So you accept the ToE as being accurate, but you still believe in created kinds? Do I have this right?

I'll have a cappuccino with you. Please do not construe this as an attack. I'd just like you to consider the following.What do you think you would have believed if you were born a Yanomamo in the Amazon rain forest? Or a Maori in 500 BCE? Or a member of one of the many primitive peoples in the Nigerian jungle?Whatever the different beliefs of these people are, they cannot all be true. If you'd dismiss the idea that the world is made of ants' excrements - the primitive Nigerian's opinion - I'd say that you were right. But if the Nigerian would laugh away your version of how the world came to be, I'd find that equally OK. And that's because there is no reason to favour either one of your stories.You see, the fact is that neither of you has a smidgen of evidence going for your particular account of what happened. And that's where the story of evolution has the advantage. It is corroborated by an overwhelming amount of evidence, from very different branches of science, all of which points in the same direction. The only thing christian creationism can present is one book of tribal myths.I wouldn't hold it against you if you think of me as one of those militant atheists you mentioned, but the fact is that the reason why I don't think the christian God had anything to do with how the world came to be is the same as why I don't hold with the ants' poo theory: there is simply no corroborative evidence. And if I had to incorporate God into the theory despite the lack of evidence, as you seem prepared to do, then I wouldn't know why I should not accomodate every other creation myth people have ever believed in as well. Do you understand the difficulty?Thanks for the coffee.

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

Let me clarify. I don't accept the ToE, but I don't dismiss it as one possible way in which God let the earth bring forth animals, not humans.Therefore - I don't try to fit evolution into the bible, but infact the opposite -> I only allow the ToE where the bible indicates and/or implies it as a possibility. Dan - where have I accused anyone here specifically? Can you provide a quote. Thanks.

Yet you do allow for heliocentrism and a round earth correct? And the Bible does not allow for that possibility. Why should this be considered a consistent criteria for you? I provided a quote and mine was the first response to you OP. Is there a reason you didn't answer?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

aren't those threads of mike's just "look! look at me!" ?That how they always appear to me.

aren't those threads of mike's just "look! look at me!" ?That how they always appear to me.

Arrrrghhhh, I'm seeing double!He might have just been looking for attention, but he said he wasn't. I guess I'm taking him at his word, though at this point I am not sure what that's worth.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I know you think this, but I haven't changed that much overall. My position has been at this level for a while now - except when I accepted evolution almost fully for a short time. Nevertheless, if I was the only creationist on earth - you wouldn't have heard of creationism - I really am not much of an enemy of the ToE. Correct. But I still doubt abiogenesis because I don't think there's evidence and I think it's speculation, or an idea given to try and give answers where there aren't any. That's not what it is Sherlock. But I am obviously against people like Dawkins and what he touts - that's what I meant. It's not ignorance - it's that I truly think they're wrong.If the few versus in Ecclesiastes to do with the Spirit of man that goes up and the spirit of animal that goes down, is what you're talking about then trust me, we don't have the same interpretation.

abiogenesis is more speculative, especially as we have no known mechanisms for it.What I am saying is that there is no more reason to doubt it than anything else, even given theology. Great and they think you are wrong. So end of discussion on evolution, evolutionary mechanisms, and abiogenesis? This appears to be what you are saying if any implication might be that your are wrong.And remember you ladled on the descriptors of bleakness and nihilism and even purposelessness to anyone that holds an atheistic evo view. Personally I am very close to Dawkins' view, thus your saying you are only slamming people like Dawkins does not exactly say much to me. It says men cannot know such things. What is your interpretation and how do you arrive at it. It looks pretty plain to me.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Those threads?Can you atleast name them, as to prove the assertion? "Those" implies that I create many threads to seek attention. But to my memory - I only recall one; "Why I am creationist", a parody thread, of my former YECism at this site.

Sherlock says; No, what I'm saying is that clearly any atheistic notions of purposelesness and random chance events - are against my belief and so these notions are a no go area. Obviously no one can expect me to conclude these positions, and become similar to these type of chaps. I think that's reasonable, as I don't force anyone to believe in Christ. Yes, sure I'll listen - but I believe in God.As for abiogenesis - I agree when you say; Exactly. Why should I give it credence in my own mind? It favours the natural and gives no glory to God whatsoever - saying that we evolved in some pre-biotic sludge.So - if evolutionists have faith in abiogenesis then that's fair enough - but to my mind it's a ludicrous suggestion, because of my own positions pertaining to a Hypothesis of consciousness. No offense meant whatsoever though. I just think better theistic explanations of intelligent design outweigh chance creating something complete and as purposeful/intended, as life. Imo.As for Ecclesiastes, could you quote it - or we can leave it. It's up to you. I doubt it's a major problem though.