While I was typing my comment above, a new one from crotchet1949 arrived.
He begins by claiming that the early settlers of America used the bible as their first text book, that they lived by the Ten Commandments, and never questioned the authority of God's word. Now as an Englishman I wouldn't dare comment on 'how the west was won' by erstwhile Europeans, on the treatment of the indigenous population, on the slave trade, or on life on the frontiers. People may have accepted the veracity of the Old Testament without question, but they don't seem to have adopted the New Testament as thoroughly as one might have hoped.
Then we hear that "Darwin's Origin of the Species was pretty much grabbed up by those who really wanted an alternative to God's Word." I think that is probably true, but it was also accepted by people who wanted to understand God's word, and since about 5% of Americans are atheists and about 60% believe in evolution, clearly over half the accepters of evolution in the USA are not those who really want an alternative to God's word, but who believe it is part of God's word.
The next argument is half missing, I think. Crotchet1949 devotes some lines to saying that there is no reason for the world, for chemical reactions, for the origin of life, or the development of man and today's reality. This is, of course, a thoroughly atheist view. Crotchet1949 does not tell us what a possible reason might be, apart from 'a purpose'. I don't think that necessarily precludes evolution.
And then - this is paradoxical really - he says that our internal organs are too complex to just happen to develop. But they do, in every one of us, from a single fertilized egg-cell. To be sure, this amazing complexity is not fortuitous, but built into the potential of the original cell. Those who wish to embrace a 'purpose' for life, and do not believe it 'just happened', also believe that it can be accomplished just as well by evolution, working on the potential available to it from the beginning of the universe, as by spontaneous creation.
Crotchet1949 concludes that his reasons for disbelieving evolution are not imaginary, which may very well be true. And that Audie's reasons for accepting evolution are not fool-proof, which might also be true. It would be good to know what those reasons are.
And another post from Audie. Exactly so. I was inquiring what creationists think was the first "kind" of horse, rather than what evolutionists think.
How God can create through evolution:
-
bippy123
- Prestigious Senior Member
- Posts: 1941
- Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 11:56 pm
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Male
- Creation Position: Day-Age
Re: How God can create through evolution:
Could God have created through evolution ? Of course .
Do I currently believe that he did ?
Currently I'm on the id fence after being an evolutionist for 41 years .
Notice how the big thing with evolutionists years ago were vestigial organs which was said to be one testable prediction of Darwinism evolution .
Notice that when that prediction started to fail miserably not one of them doubted Darwin
Vestigial organs were one of the biggest failures of Darwinian evolution , but no big deal , there's always another potential prediction .
And no Darwinism evolution can't be a dogmatic belief
Do I currently believe that he did ?
Currently I'm on the id fence after being an evolutionist for 41 years .
Notice how the big thing with evolutionists years ago were vestigial organs which was said to be one testable prediction of Darwinism evolution .
Notice that when that prediction started to fail miserably not one of them doubted Darwin
Vestigial organs were one of the biggest failures of Darwinian evolution , but no big deal , there's always another potential prediction .
And no Darwinism evolution can't be a dogmatic belief
-
hughfarey
- Advanced Senior Member
- Posts: 752
- Joined: Mon Jun 03, 2013 2:58 am
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Male
- Creation Position: Theistic Evolution
Re: How God can create through evolution:
In what sense are vestigial organs a 'testable prediction' of evolution? And in what sense are they no longer such a test?
My answer would be that as an organ becomes less useful to a group of organisms, it is likely to diminish in size, and in particular in the energy expended in making it. If it is useless, it will eventually disappear unless there is absolutely no selective pressure either way. Many of the classic vestigial organs considered by Darwin have resolutely refused to disappear, and for years scientists have wondered whether they might not have some use after all, in addition to their primary purpose when well developed.The discovery of secondary functions of, say, the human appendix or the hind-legs of whales have served to explain why these organs have not become extinct. The predictions, far from failing miserably, were satisfactorily verified, and have the discovery of secondary purpose has served to confirm, not to discredit, evolution.
You are of course correct that a scientist cannot have a dogmatic belief if Darwinism, but then, he cannot have a dogmatic belief in anything except the primacy of rationality, and even that is more of an assumption than a dogma. That's what science is.
My answer would be that as an organ becomes less useful to a group of organisms, it is likely to diminish in size, and in particular in the energy expended in making it. If it is useless, it will eventually disappear unless there is absolutely no selective pressure either way. Many of the classic vestigial organs considered by Darwin have resolutely refused to disappear, and for years scientists have wondered whether they might not have some use after all, in addition to their primary purpose when well developed.The discovery of secondary functions of, say, the human appendix or the hind-legs of whales have served to explain why these organs have not become extinct. The predictions, far from failing miserably, were satisfactorily verified, and have the discovery of secondary purpose has served to confirm, not to discredit, evolution.
You are of course correct that a scientist cannot have a dogmatic belief if Darwinism, but then, he cannot have a dogmatic belief in anything except the primacy of rationality, and even that is more of an assumption than a dogma. That's what science is.
-
Audie
- Ultimate Member
- Posts: 3502
- Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2014 6:41 am
- Christian: No
- Sex: Female
- Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
- Location: USA
Re: How God can create through evolution:
And what science is not is something to successfully disprove withhughfarey wrote:In what sense are vestigial organs a 'testable prediction' of evolution? And in what sense are they no longer such a test?
My answer would be that as an organ becomes less useful to a group of organisms, it is likely to diminish in size, and in particular in the energy expended in making it. If it is useless, it will eventually disappear unless there is absolutely no selective pressure either way. Many of the classic vestigial organs considered by Darwin have resolutely refused to disappear, and for years scientists have wondered whether they might not have some use after all, in addition to their primary purpose when well developed.The discovery of secondary functions of, say, the human appendix or the hind-legs of whales have served to explain why these organs have not become extinct. The predictions, far from failing miserably, were satisfactorily verified, and have the discovery of secondary purpose has served to confirm, not to discredit, evolution.
You are of course correct that a scientist cannot have a dogmatic belief if Darwinism, but then, he cannot have a dogmatic belief in anything except the primacy of rationality, and even that is more of an assumption than a dogma. That's what science is.
vague allusions to some imaginary hypocrisy on the part of persons
unidentified.
-
bippy123
- Prestigious Senior Member
- Posts: 1941
- Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 11:56 pm
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Male
- Creation Position: Day-Age
Re: How God can create through evolution:
Hugh the belief that vestigial organs are organs that diminished because they weren't used enough is now known to be a myth . The more biologists look into them the more they are finding that they do have function . I will post some links to this when I have time , as far as whales are concerned their transitional fossil chart is a complete mess with a more recent basilosaurus find that dated back to 49 million years ago swimming at the same time as it's supposed ancestor ambulocetas .hughfarey wrote:In what sense are vestigial organs a 'testable prediction' of evolution? And in what sense are they no longer such a test?
My answer would be that as an organ becomes less useful to a group of organisms, it is likely to diminish in size, and in particular in the energy expended in making it. If it is useless, it will eventually disappear unless there is absolutely no selective pressure either way. Many of the classic vestigial organs considered by Darwin have resolutely refused to disappear, and for years scientists have wondered whether they might not have some use after all, in addition to their primary purpose when well developed.The discovery of secondary functions of, say, the human appendix or the hind-legs of whales have served to explain why these organs have not become extinct. The predictions, far from failing miserably, were satisfactorily verified, and have the discovery of secondary purpose has served to confirm, not to discredit, evolution.
You are of course correct that a scientist cannot have a dogmatic belief if Darwinism, but then, he cannot have a dogmatic belief in anything except the primacy of rationality, and even that is more of an assumption than a dogma. That's what science is.
That and the whake population genetics by evolutionary biologist Richard sternberg makes me doubt this already flimsy chart al together .
The vestigial organ links won't be hard to find if you honestly do a search for both sides of the argument .
I have no problem coming back to evolution but ill need more then old arguments to do the trick
-
bippy123
- Prestigious Senior Member
- Posts: 1941
- Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 11:56 pm
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Male
- Creation Position: Day-Age
Re: How God can create through evolution:
Or dogmatic emotional assertions abour what is considered vague and what isn'tAudie wrote:And what science is not is something to successfully disprove withhughfarey wrote:In what sense are vestigial organs a 'testable prediction' of evolution? And in what sense are they no longer such a test?
My answer would be that as an organ becomes less useful to a group of organisms, it is likely to diminish in size, and in particular in the energy expended in making it. If it is useless, it will eventually disappear unless there is absolutely no selective pressure either way. Many of the classic vestigial organs considered by Darwin have resolutely refused to disappear, and for years scientists have wondered whether they might not have some use after all, in addition to their primary purpose when well developed.The discovery of secondary functions of, say, the human appendix or the hind-legs of whales have served to explain why these organs have not become extinct. The predictions, far from failing miserably, were satisfactorily verified, and have the discovery of secondary purpose has served to confirm, not to discredit, evolution.
You are of course correct that a scientist cannot have a dogmatic belief if Darwinism, but then, he cannot have a dogmatic belief in anything except the primacy of rationality, and even that is more of an assumption than a dogma. That's what science is.
vague allusions to some imaginary hypocrisy on the part of persons
unidentified.
-
bippy123
- Prestigious Senior Member
- Posts: 1941
- Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 11:56 pm
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Male
- Creation Position: Day-Age
Re: How God can create through evolution:
Hugh this is more of a philosophical assumption then a scientific assumption .your assuming that because an organ is still here that it's official function now wasn't it's original function .hughfarey wrote:In what sense are vestigial organs a 'testable prediction' of evolution? And in what sense are they no longer such a test?
My answer would be that as an organ becomes less useful to a group of organisms, it is likely to diminish in size, and in particular in the energy expended in making it. If it is useless, it will eventually disappear unless there is absolutely no selective pressure either way. Many of the classic vestigial organs considered by Darwin have resolutely refused to disappear, and for years scientists have wondered whether they might not have some use after all, in addition to their primary purpose when well developed.The discovery of secondary functions of, say, the human appendix or the hind-legs of whales have served to explain why these organs have not become extinct. The predictions, far from failing miserably, were satisfactorily verified, and have the discovery of secondary purpose has served to confirm, not to discredit, evolution.
You are of course correct that a scientist cannot have a dogmatic belief if Darwinism, but then, he cannot have a dogmatic belief in anything except the primacy of rationality, and even that is more of an assumption than a dogma. That's what science is.
When you make your assumption in the way you worded it there is absolutely no way to falsify it ,
In essence we can find any way to fit any evidence to fit in with evolution .
We assume evolution and fit everything into the theory .
I personally believe that the truth will be some hybrid firm that combines parts of evolution and intelligent design but We can't prove anything currently , but that doesn't mean "we can't prove it there for evolution ""
Lenskis bacteria is enough to show me that there is something kind of intelligent programming g going on even though that wasn't the good professors original intent
-
hughfarey
- Advanced Senior Member
- Posts: 752
- Joined: Mon Jun 03, 2013 2:58 am
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Male
- Creation Position: Theistic Evolution
Re: How God can create through evolution:
Audie: "And what science is not is something to successfully disprove with vague allusions to some imaginary hypocrisy on the part of persons unidentified." I'm so sorry; I really don't understand that at all. Is it a reference to bippy or crotchet?
Bippy123: "Hugh the belief that vestigial organs are organs that diminished because they weren't used enough is now known to be a myth. The more biologists look into them the more they are finding that they do have function." You haven't read my comment carefully enough. Evolutionists certainly think that organs diminish with disuse, and illustrate their belief with successive fossils with diminishing features, exactly in keeping with their diminishing utility in their environment. We do not think this is a myth at all. The whale is exactly a case in point. Hind legs, so useful for movement on land, are less useful for movement at sea, and have diminished in size. However, they have not disappeared because they have the secondary function, which has not diminished, of anchoring the muscles of the reproductive system. Something similar occurs with the human appendix and various other vestigial organs.
I take your point about this idea being difficult to disprove, even if false. However, fossils of extinct whales, even though they are not necessarily ancestors of modern ones (or of each other), do show bones in the leg-bone position generally getting smaller through the ages. The 'hind-legs' of modern whales are in the same place, and indeed much the same shape, as their earlier counterparts. I consider it not unreasonable to grant that these organs are indeed versions of the same original. What's more I do not assume "that because an organ is still here that its official function now wasn't its original function." It may have begun by having two functions, one of which required a large size (locomotion), and one of which didn't (reproductive muscle anchorage).
I have read Richard Sternberg's ideas about whale evolution, and they seems to be founded on the idea that 5 or 6 million years is insufficient time for the number of adaptations required for the transition to an aquatic lifestyle to have evolved. I disagree with him. However, assuming for a moment that whales did not evolve, how did they get there? Intelligent design, I think, does not preclude evolution. It seems to me mostly to represent a series of unlikely events which together are so unlikely as to be beyond possibility, although not mathematically impossible. As such, one simply cannot to say whether the occurrence of an unlikely event is just that, or the result of a divine 'nudge'.
Bippy123: "Hugh the belief that vestigial organs are organs that diminished because they weren't used enough is now known to be a myth. The more biologists look into them the more they are finding that they do have function." You haven't read my comment carefully enough. Evolutionists certainly think that organs diminish with disuse, and illustrate their belief with successive fossils with diminishing features, exactly in keeping with their diminishing utility in their environment. We do not think this is a myth at all. The whale is exactly a case in point. Hind legs, so useful for movement on land, are less useful for movement at sea, and have diminished in size. However, they have not disappeared because they have the secondary function, which has not diminished, of anchoring the muscles of the reproductive system. Something similar occurs with the human appendix and various other vestigial organs.
I take your point about this idea being difficult to disprove, even if false. However, fossils of extinct whales, even though they are not necessarily ancestors of modern ones (or of each other), do show bones in the leg-bone position generally getting smaller through the ages. The 'hind-legs' of modern whales are in the same place, and indeed much the same shape, as their earlier counterparts. I consider it not unreasonable to grant that these organs are indeed versions of the same original. What's more I do not assume "that because an organ is still here that its official function now wasn't its original function." It may have begun by having two functions, one of which required a large size (locomotion), and one of which didn't (reproductive muscle anchorage).
I have read Richard Sternberg's ideas about whale evolution, and they seems to be founded on the idea that 5 or 6 million years is insufficient time for the number of adaptations required for the transition to an aquatic lifestyle to have evolved. I disagree with him. However, assuming for a moment that whales did not evolve, how did they get there? Intelligent design, I think, does not preclude evolution. It seems to me mostly to represent a series of unlikely events which together are so unlikely as to be beyond possibility, although not mathematically impossible. As such, one simply cannot to say whether the occurrence of an unlikely event is just that, or the result of a divine 'nudge'.
-
bippy123
- Prestigious Senior Member
- Posts: 1941
- Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 11:56 pm
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Male
- Creation Position: Day-Age
Re: How God can create through evolution:
Exactly Hugh hence my scepticism on whake evolution 
I have always believed that a healthy dose of scepticism is good .
The same kind of scepticism I had about ndes before being convinced by the literature that they weren't illusions caused by the dying brain .
I'm open to coming back to evolution but I'm gonna need more then philosophical assumptions .
Isn't that the way science is supposed to work ?
Thank God I'm
Not a biologist or I would have been burnt at the stake for what I just said
I have always believed that a healthy dose of scepticism is good .
The same kind of scepticism I had about ndes before being convinced by the literature that they weren't illusions caused by the dying brain .
I'm open to coming back to evolution but I'm gonna need more then philosophical assumptions .
Isn't that the way science is supposed to work ?
Thank God I'm
Not a biologist or I would have been burnt at the stake for what I just said
-
crochet1949
- Esteemed Senior Member
- Posts: 1467
- Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2014 1:04 am
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Female
- Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist
Re: How God can create through evolution:
Audie -- I've been researching around the Internet -- Found "Study - Last Common Ancestor of humans and apes looked like gorilla or chimpanzee -- genus Pan -- 6-7 million years ago.
A couple of years ago - on another Forum-- there was an on- going discussion on evolution. There was a gentleman who Did include a chart on common ancestry -- so - please - let's not be putting down my research.
Besides -- I don't know why you're down=playing the comment about the chimps -- wouldn't that be Proving your point with evolution? The 'common ancestry' thing.
The accumulated little changes are called mutations in DNA. Most mutations are not even noticed or they are corrected by built in mechanisms or they only last for a generation or two. Evolution pretty much depends on positive mutations accumulating over thousands of years and producing a something new. And it's the negative mutations/ genes that result in diseases / I'm thinking that cycle-cell anemia is one of them/ or the two - headed pig or other physical abnormalities.
My comment regarding horses and zebras was that they are in the same family -- I wasn't saying they would mate and produce off-spring. Just as there are many kinds of cats in the feline family - but they don't mate and produce off-spring. I'm thinking that a horse Can mate with 'whatever' but their off-spring are sterile. A mule / donkey.
Every person has a genetic code -- a man and woman have a child. Meaning that people reproduce other People. Their child will have traits from both parents and from grandparents or other relatives. So --yes - each person Is unique -- but uniquely Human. They get their eye color, hair color, height, etc. from their parents / grandparents. One of my kids / caucasion Could marry a black person -- their children will be some shade of black and have negroid looking hair. An off-spring might be such a light shade that they are almost caucasian. The same thing with Caucasian and Hispanic.
But, yes, life Does happen generation by generation. But it Also means that - even several generations in the future -- no one is going to be gradually changing into something 'different'. A child could be born with legs joined together -- they can't Stay that way -- they are not turning in mermaids. There would be a need for surgical intervention.
Genesis 1 :24 "Let the earth bring forth the living creatures according to it's kind, cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth , each according to it's kind, and it was so."
One thing I've wondered is why cattle are the only animal mentioned by name.
A few verses later, vs 26 "Then God said, Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness ; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."
So -- draw your conclusions from straight-forward English. And, yes, I'm Also aware that the Old Testament was originally in Hebrew / Not English. And there are those who don't trust the reliability of translators.
A couple of years ago - on another Forum-- there was an on- going discussion on evolution. There was a gentleman who Did include a chart on common ancestry -- so - please - let's not be putting down my research.
Besides -- I don't know why you're down=playing the comment about the chimps -- wouldn't that be Proving your point with evolution? The 'common ancestry' thing.
The accumulated little changes are called mutations in DNA. Most mutations are not even noticed or they are corrected by built in mechanisms or they only last for a generation or two. Evolution pretty much depends on positive mutations accumulating over thousands of years and producing a something new. And it's the negative mutations/ genes that result in diseases / I'm thinking that cycle-cell anemia is one of them/ or the two - headed pig or other physical abnormalities.
My comment regarding horses and zebras was that they are in the same family -- I wasn't saying they would mate and produce off-spring. Just as there are many kinds of cats in the feline family - but they don't mate and produce off-spring. I'm thinking that a horse Can mate with 'whatever' but their off-spring are sterile. A mule / donkey.
Every person has a genetic code -- a man and woman have a child. Meaning that people reproduce other People. Their child will have traits from both parents and from grandparents or other relatives. So --yes - each person Is unique -- but uniquely Human. They get their eye color, hair color, height, etc. from their parents / grandparents. One of my kids / caucasion Could marry a black person -- their children will be some shade of black and have negroid looking hair. An off-spring might be such a light shade that they are almost caucasian. The same thing with Caucasian and Hispanic.
But, yes, life Does happen generation by generation. But it Also means that - even several generations in the future -- no one is going to be gradually changing into something 'different'. A child could be born with legs joined together -- they can't Stay that way -- they are not turning in mermaids. There would be a need for surgical intervention.
Genesis 1 :24 "Let the earth bring forth the living creatures according to it's kind, cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth , each according to it's kind, and it was so."
One thing I've wondered is why cattle are the only animal mentioned by name.
A few verses later, vs 26 "Then God said, Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness ; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."
So -- draw your conclusions from straight-forward English. And, yes, I'm Also aware that the Old Testament was originally in Hebrew / Not English. And there are those who don't trust the reliability of translators.
-
crochet1949
- Esteemed Senior Member
- Posts: 1467
- Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2014 1:04 am
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Female
- Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist
Re: How God can create through evolution:
Just to clarify -- crochet 1949 -- I'm a woman, not a 'he'.
My point in saying that there is no real reason For the earth and all it's inhabitance to exist. Everything has a Purpose. That's something that people have been searching for in their lives -- Purpose.
Someone said that That sounded atheistic. I'm totally Theistic / God is very much alive.
I'd propose that God created all of this just as He's described it in Genesis - that's 'beginnings'. He created people for a purpose -- the original Garden of Eden was a perfect environment. Adam and Eve were placed there to produce family. Adam lived for Many years -- long enough to produce Lots of children who would grow up and as adults would join and produce more children. "Be fruitful and multiply'. Another part of the story is that God Also tells us that there will be eternity - our physical bodies will die but there is a heaven and hell in the future. And That will be lasting Forever. And we are told how to be able to be in heaven and how to end up in hell. And heaven will be a Garden of Eden restored but with Satan bound for eternity in the lake of fire and brimstone / nashing of teeth and everything nasty. That can be found in book of Revelation.
God created this world for mankind to enjoy.
My point in saying that there is no real reason For the earth and all it's inhabitance to exist. Everything has a Purpose. That's something that people have been searching for in their lives -- Purpose.
Someone said that That sounded atheistic. I'm totally Theistic / God is very much alive.
I'd propose that God created all of this just as He's described it in Genesis - that's 'beginnings'. He created people for a purpose -- the original Garden of Eden was a perfect environment. Adam and Eve were placed there to produce family. Adam lived for Many years -- long enough to produce Lots of children who would grow up and as adults would join and produce more children. "Be fruitful and multiply'. Another part of the story is that God Also tells us that there will be eternity - our physical bodies will die but there is a heaven and hell in the future. And That will be lasting Forever. And we are told how to be able to be in heaven and how to end up in hell. And heaven will be a Garden of Eden restored but with Satan bound for eternity in the lake of fire and brimstone / nashing of teeth and everything nasty. That can be found in book of Revelation.
God created this world for mankind to enjoy.
-
hughfarey
- Advanced Senior Member
- Posts: 752
- Joined: Mon Jun 03, 2013 2:58 am
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Male
- Creation Position: Theistic Evolution
Re: How God can create through evolution:
The Old Testament was indeed not originally in English, and the English translation of the Authorised Version is not the English of today. The word for 'cattle' in Genesis 1:24 was 'behamah', which could mean almost any kind of animal, including humans, in different contexts, but which here seems to be contrasted with 'chaiath', which usually means 'wild beast'. That is why behemah is translated as if it meant 'domestic beast.' What's more, the word cattle did not refer specifically to cows when the bible was first translated into English, but to any animal 'property' (it comes from the same root as 'capital').
It is not beyond evolutionary imagination that people could speciate into mermaids. It would need an extremely aquatic lifestyle, a separation of one group of humans from another, and about ten million years. Whatever anthropoid gave rise to both chimpanzees and humans did so in a very similar fashion.
It is not beyond evolutionary imagination that people could speciate into mermaids. It would need an extremely aquatic lifestyle, a separation of one group of humans from another, and about ten million years. Whatever anthropoid gave rise to both chimpanzees and humans did so in a very similar fashion.
-
hughfarey
- Advanced Senior Member
- Posts: 752
- Joined: Mon Jun 03, 2013 2:58 am
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Male
- Creation Position: Theistic Evolution
Re: How God can create through evolution:
I'm so sorry, crotchet; I should have looked at your information panel.
And I note that you are a Young Earth Creationist. Perhaps curiously, as a scientist, I have no problem with Young Earth Creationists. I think they're completely wrong, of course, but there is at least an elegant simplicity to their faith which owes nothing to science at all. We can agree to disagree. Old Earth Creationists have to put themselves through all sorts of contortions to try to reconcile their beliefs both with the bible on the one hand, and with science on the other, and the effort is rarely edifying.
And I note that you are a Young Earth Creationist. Perhaps curiously, as a scientist, I have no problem with Young Earth Creationists. I think they're completely wrong, of course, but there is at least an elegant simplicity to their faith which owes nothing to science at all. We can agree to disagree. Old Earth Creationists have to put themselves through all sorts of contortions to try to reconcile their beliefs both with the bible on the one hand, and with science on the other, and the effort is rarely edifying.
Re: How God can create through evolution:
Seriously?hughfarey wrote:Old Earth Creationists have to put themselves through all sorts of contortions to try to reconcile their beliefs both with the bible on the one hand, and with science on the other, and the effort is rarely edifying.
Let us proclaim the mystery of our faith: Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again.
Lord I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed.
Lord I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed.
-
crochet1949
- Esteemed Senior Member
- Posts: 1467
- Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2014 1:04 am
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Female
- Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist
Re: How God can create through evolution:
hugh -- the mermaid thing was a deformity -- not a development that has become a new part of human life.
And yes, the English of the KJV was in the English used back then. And lots of people love the old English / the poetry of the Psalms. But it's not the English used today. Which is also why the NKJV is popular as well as the Old NIV -- there's a New NIV that isn't worth much. The NIV is in paragraph style which is more reader friendly. And the 'thee's and thou's have been replaced with 'you and your' , etc.
I grew up in a Bible teaching church -- A BIG one in central Iowa. And our church grew and started other churches in various parts of our fast growing area due to development of John Deere's. So there Are lots of us creationists still existing. We aren't extinct , yet.
Although there Are some who wish that we'd be willing to get out of our small box and be willing to expand our intellectual horizons. I DO enjoy researching. And good discussion. Which we've been having a Lot of recently.
And yes, the English of the KJV was in the English used back then. And lots of people love the old English / the poetry of the Psalms. But it's not the English used today. Which is also why the NKJV is popular as well as the Old NIV -- there's a New NIV that isn't worth much. The NIV is in paragraph style which is more reader friendly. And the 'thee's and thou's have been replaced with 'you and your' , etc.
I grew up in a Bible teaching church -- A BIG one in central Iowa. And our church grew and started other churches in various parts of our fast growing area due to development of John Deere's. So there Are lots of us creationists still existing. We aren't extinct , yet.
Although there Are some who wish that we'd be willing to get out of our small box and be willing to expand our intellectual horizons. I DO enjoy researching. And good discussion. Which we've been having a Lot of recently.