Young-Earth Creationism

[Anonymous]

Kurieuo: Thread split from http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... .php?p=566

thanks for the clarification.

Some great resources to do with creation which should provide some helpful information can be found on the

web at: http://www.creationresearch.net/secure/main%20page.htm
http://www.drdino.com
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-330.htm
http://discovercreation.org/ ... haven't given that one a good look see yet... so the jury's out on it's usefulness, but it's there

but yea, I'm sure your site is excellent http://www.godandscience.org/ to!

[Kurieuo]

I should probably point out if it isn't already obvious, that any science pertaining to creation on the GodandScience.org website is not "Creation Science" per se (i.e., does not advocate a young-earth interpretation). I have found your sources or others agreeable with your sources, to have intentionally distorted truths on many issues (for example, selective statistics gathering to try show the speed of light as decreasing).

You might be interested to know that ICR have also launched an assault this year on Christians who do not conform to their young-earth view of creation. I think Christ should always be placed first beyond disagreements, so I am for allowing different Christian positions on this board, including the Young-Earth although I generally align myself with the Day-Age position (a position that is also Biblical).

Anyway, if you're not familiar with the different views on creation, I'm sure you will soon have a lot of new information to digest.

Kurieuo.

[Anonymous]

I don't know now. Your second article, from my experience is either ignorance of the position most young earth believers take about old earth creationists, or is a deliberate lie.

Mr. Hovand, though his sarcasm even turns me off very often, often clarifies that while he thinks evo-christians are wrong, he does hold that they are his brothers in Christ.
Mr. Machay's sarcasm is on a more tolerable level and usually also states that evo-cristians may be wrong, but must be respected as fellow believers in Christ.
Neither of them see reason to divide chruches on this issue.

Just because you declare someone intolerent does not make them so.

From that article, you, my friend, seem to be the one who wants to divide. So I'm afraid to accept the truth eh? No, but I'm very hesitant about someone claiming to be "more tolerant" and then makes claims for his ideas that seem no different then those he's speaking against.

Upset that the young earthers say your side has no scriptural backing when you say theirs doesn't? Angry that they dare say you are compromising when you say their minds are trapped in a primitive black and white world? Oh brother.

I've not read that book, if it says anything about requiring people to believe young earth creationism in order to be saved, which I doubt it does, it is dead wrong and deviating from mainstream young earth creationists as I have come to know them.

I take offence at your article. As a young earth creationist, I have never sought to destroy the faith of or in any way harm a evo-christian, yet without knowing a thing about me or those on my side, you seek to claim, that in general, our movement is out to get yours.

Tolerance? Did I even bring up a difference between you and I? Nope. I was aware of it. Which of us immediatly sought to critisize the others side when doing so was of no value to the discussion?

I don't think you're tolerant at all.

All that said, you seem to be a very good teacher of Christianity, even if you need to realize we young earth believers are your brothers, not your enemies.

[Anonymous]

as a gesture of good will, I invite you to this debate http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/sho ... hp?t=15884

I'll drop pro-young earth arguements in order to back you up, but don't expect me to contradict my young earth beliefs.

[Kurieuo]

Your second article, from my experience is either ignorance of the position most young earth believers take about old earth creationists, or is a deliberate lie.

Here's a quote from a more direct source about the "operation":

As we see the continuing loss of Christian morality and the Christian worldview in this culture, more and more of God's people (as a result of ministries like AiG) are now understanding that a major contributing factor to this terrible slide lies with churches and church leaders who have been misled into major compromise.

Even though America has been (and still is) a Christian nation, with the largest number of Christian resources in the world (colleges, seminaries, bookstores, radio/TV stations, etc.), this country is becoming more and more anti-Christian every day.

While this has been going on, the majority of Christian leaders (pastors, elders, seminary professors, etc.) have not taken a stand on six literal days of creation, but have allowed for millions of years of history before man ever appeared on the earth. They have 'unlocked a door': to allow for man to be in authority over God's Word, and thus to undermine the Bible as our absolute authority.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/us/news ... 04lead.asp

Mr. Hovand, though his sarcasm even turns me off very often, often clarifies that while he thinks evo-christians are wrong, he does hold that they are his brothers in Christ. Mr. Machay's sarcasm is on a more tolerable level and usually also states that evo-cristians may be wrong, but must be respected as fellow believers in Christ.

Evo-Christians is a term I've not heard before. But it is dishonest to continually label Day-Age proponents "evolutionists" (or "Rossists" even, as I recall from past experiences, as though it's a heresy lead by Hugh Ross). We do not advocate evolution nor theistic evolution.

Just because you declare someone intolerent does not make them so.

From that article, you, my friend, seem to be the one who wants to divide. So I'm afraid to accept the truth eh? No, but I'm very hesitant about someone claiming to be "more tolerant" and then makes claims for his ideas that seem no different then those he's speaking against.

Upset that the young earthers say your side has no scriptural backing when you say theirs doesn't? Angry that they dare say you are compromising when you say their minds are trapped in a primitive black and white world? Oh brother.

What are you on about? I apologise if you were offended by anything I said.

I've not read that book, if it says anything about requiring people to believe young earth creationism in order to be saved, which I doubt it does, it is dead wrong and deviating from mainstream young earth creationists as I have come to know them.

It makes one wonder why they (AiG) would then dedicate so much time and effort into an "operation" refuting Hugh Ross and Reasons to Believe. The way they act it is as though war has been declared (see http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/rc/intro.asp). I would recommend getting hold of the book in question and reading it before really commenting further about Greg Neyman's response to it.

Kurieuo.

[Kurieuo]

as a gesture of good will, I invite you to this debate http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/sho ... hp?t=15884

Sorry, but I don't see anything relevant to my position in that discussion (i.e., it looks like "Creationism" vs. Evolution). I also like to dedicate what time I have for online discussions to this board, as it can become a bit much holding up discussions on multiple boards.

Kurieuo.

[Anonymous]

You seek to prove the stupidity of young earth belief, the bigitory of it and show yours exclusive teaching of God while attacking young earthers for calling their belief exclusive teachings of God. In the end, discussion of who is more tolerant is moot, and isulting unless somone makes a blantant character assault. And then it is best to attack the perpetrator, not every group they associate with.

quote from your article

The problem in exposing fallacious teaching is that it also undermines the credibility of the source of the teaching, and this is perhaps why some have said AiG is being too 'personal' in our analyses of Ross's teachings. It might be helpful if such critics were to specify in detail just where they have found the material to be too personal, or how the fallacious teaching of Ross can be decisively exposed without offending feelings. It is a very difficult thing to expose error without hurting the person's feelings, because matters of reputation, pride, and the like are at stake. However, because Dr Ross has made such fallacious and Bible-undermining arguments in public, our response must also be public. This book will major on Ross's teachings, not his person, concentrating on the issues.

If you don't wish to help in the dicussion, very well.

[Anonymous]

Evo-Christians- commonly, from what I understand simply means, a person who believes the Bible and many evolution theories can co-exist as both true.

You'll notice evolution is abreviated, while Christian is not.

[Kurieuo]

I'm not sure why you are getting so heated. Also, I don't think it really matters whether you or I consider our position to be exclusive or more true (positions generally "are" exclusive of others). What matters is whether a position can stand up against others.

So if you wish to debate your position (Young-Earth Creationism) versus the one I advocate (Day-Age creationism), then I'm all for a "civil" debate. Feel free to open up a new thread and begin your arguments from Scripture and Science for your own position and I will respond accordingly.

Kurieuo.

[Anonymous]

edit (this was typed up before seeing the message just above)

You put a rather miss-leading title up there. I'm not trying to prove young earth creationism... if you wish me to, I suppose I can try.

Here goes.

So, the Sun, stars, and earth were all created at the beginning of day 1.

Nope

And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. 16 God made two great lights-the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning-the fourth day.

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

I take this to mean, that before this account there was no outer space nor earth. Outer space is the heavens, earth is well... earth!

Notice the reference to evening and morning. What is the evening of a billion years? What is its morning?

Also, I question why God would make an account in Genisis that no one until the modern eara could hope to understand. Not until the introduction of Darwin's theory, does it seem like there would have been much hope for any one to realize these were not a literal six days.

Sometimes day, actually means day. Sometimes it means a unspecified period of time, (i.e, in the day of my childhood) but I don't see this. If day never means 24 hours, imagine how long poor Jonah was in that whale

But the LORD provided a great fish to swallow Jonah, and Jonah was inside the fish three days and three nights.

Or just how long was Jesus in the tomb?

[Anonymous]

First, I see no reason to call you day age creationists. The term sounds rather missleading. Only a fellow day-age creationist would realize off the bat what you mean. Day-age hence, six days, is the connection I suspect most people would make.

for example, selective statistics gathering to try show the speed of light as decreasing).

please read this http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/ar ... nt_use.asp

in it you'll find this quote

The speed of light has decreased over time' (c decay). Although most of the evolutionary counter-arguments have been proven to be fallacious, there are still a number of problems, many of which were raised by creationists, which we believe have not been satisfactorily answered. AiG currently prefers Dr Russell Humphreys' explanation for distant starlight, although neither AiG nor Dr Humphreys claims that his model is infallible.

You're perhaps siting Mr. Hovind correctly. He is rather stuborn, but not all creationists stick to scientifically controversial ideas. For instance, in the 90s, a pleasasaur like caurcass was dragged onto a fishing boat. It was confirmed as a non hoax and for a while had much of the millions and millions of years ago dinos died out, crowd, standing on their heads trying to figure out what was going on. Fortuanatly for them, and unfortuanatly for the young earthers, it was proved to be a species of shark. Mr. Hovind, God bless him, so far as I know, still hasn't recanted the idea that it was an actual dinosaur.

Just like evolution scientists, and evo-Christian scientists, young earth scientists aren't perfect. And, just like you, sometimes we disagree. If your interested in hearing Hovind's side of things, he has a video series on his site somewhere called, Answering the Critics that may interest you.

[Kurieuo]

Hi BP,

As promised, I will respond to your arguments against my Yom-Age view. I might also begin returning your favour by calling your position the Evo-Creationism view . Seeing as YECs agree as much with biological evolution as we do, I think it only fair.

Firstly, in relation to Gen 1:1 and verse 2, there is a waw at the end of verse 1 which designates a continuation into verse two. I make this point now to prevent verse 1 being claimed as only a summary of the creation account—it is definitely apart of the creation account if verse 2 is.

So, the Sun, stars, and earth were all created at the beginning of day 1.

Nope

Now the phrase Hashamayim we ha'erets, translated "heavens and earth", carries a distinct meaning which your YEC sources also understand. It consistently refers to the totality of the universe. This means in Genesis 1, all the materials of the universe (i.e., matter, energy and whatever else it contains) were created. Verse 1 quickly continues into verse 2 where we are given a reference point—Earth is formless and empty—so we can assume everything prior to Earth being formless and empty was in place being included the Hashamayim we ha'erets of verse 1. Thus, our galaxy, the Sun, and other required conditions for a primitive Earth to be existent, were in place at verses 1-2.

And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. 16 God made two great lights-the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning-the fourth day.

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

I take this to mean, that before this account there was no outer space nor earth. Outer space is the heavens, earth is well... earth!

In verse 2 we have, "And the earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters." The Spirit of God is therefore at Earth's surface where it is dark. Why is it dark if the Sun was previously created? Job 38:4-9 provides us with an answer: "Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?... When I made a cloud its garment, And thick darkness its swaddling band." It was dark as God had enveloped Earth within a thick cloud (i.e., atmosphere). In Job we are also given the implications of an early period in Earth's history which Science also acknowledges—it is said Earth should have a much thicker atmosphere like Venus, however this basically got blown away (more on this soon).

Verses 3 and 4 (also a continuation of thought after verse 2) then say, "Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light." It is here light hits Earth's surface for the first time. One could assume the thick clouds/atmosphere creating darkness, as written in Job, were finally removed. How did God do this? Well he could have waived a wand perhaps, but there seems to be scientific evidence which tells the story of how Earth was released from its thick atmosphere. The solution to this mystery is said to lie with Earth's moon. Many believe an asteroid the size of Mars or larger hit Earth and was greatly absorbed into its core. Such a collision would have blasted almost all of Earth's original atmosphere into outer space. For more refer to http://www.psrd.hawaii.edu/Dec98/OriginEarthMoon.html. Such an impact would have certainly broken Earth's atmosphere up enough to allow light on Earth's surface.

Then we come to day 4 where it says, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night." While Earth's atmosphere may have been allowing light to penetrate through it, it is easy to picture it as being translucent rather than transparent after such a dramatic impact. So light would be reaching Earth but the stars and so forth would not have been viewable, much like an overcast day. It isn't until day 4, after plants had been created (which no doubt contributed to the clearing of Earth's atmosphere by soaking up Carbon dioxide), that one is able to see "lights in the expanse of the sky." Verse 16 is simply providing further details on what was already made in the past (I believe on day one). As Rich points out about verse 16, "the Hebrew verbs indicate an action completed at some time in the past" (http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/genesis1.html).

Continuing this thought, Rich also explains on the same page that: "Verse 18 gives us another hint. The lights were placed in the sky to "separate the light from the darkness." Does this sound familiar? It is the exact Hebrew phrase used for God's work on the first day when, "God separated the light from the darkness" (Genesis 1:4) By using this phrase, the text is recounting the formation of the Sun, moon and stars from the first day. If we accept that God created the Sun, moon and stars on the fourth day, then He didn't really create the heavens in verse one. So, the 24-hour day interpretation suffers a contradiction between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:16." (emphasis mine)

Notice the reference to evening and morning. What is the evening of a billion years? What is its morning?

Moses says in Psalms 90:6, "In the morning it [grass] flourishes, and sprouts anew; Toward evening it fades, and withers away." Does grass grow up in the morning and die by evening? If you desire more of a response, I think Rich does a great job responding to this issue further at http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/longdays.html.

Read Genesis 2:4 —"These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens" (KJV). Generations sounds like a long time. How long is a day in this verse?

God's seventh day of rest is never closed. Psalm 95:11 tells us God declared some will not enter into His rest. In Hebrews 4 we also have: "For He has thus said somewhere concerning the seventh day, "And God rested on the seventh day from all His works"... Let us therefore be diligent to enter that rest, lest anyone fall through following the same example of disobedience." How long is the seventh day if we even today people can enter God's seventh day of rest?

Sometimes day, actually means day. Sometimes it means a unspecified period of time, (i.e, in the day of my childhood) but I don't see this.

You seem to be focusing in on the English word "day". The Hebrew, yom, on the other hand (translated into "day"), can literally refer to a 24 hour day, sunrise to sunset (12 hours), or a long, unspecified period of time.

Kurieuo.

[Anonymous]

Sometimes day, actually means day. Sometimes it means a unspecified period of time, (i.e, in the day of my childhood) but I don't see this.

You seem to be focusing in on the English word "day". The Hebrew, yom, on the other hand (translated into "day"), can literally refer to a 24 hour day, sunrise to sunset (12 hours), or a long, unspecified period of time.

Eh em, read my quote again, arguing the same thing I just presented back to me does not help your case unless you have a point.

My Basic Belief

God created the world in 6 days

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

God creates space and the earth on day one.

3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.

God created light as well on the first day. (Could also be easily translated as he created energy.)

6 And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." 7

The theory is that this was an actual expanse, water above the sky and below... no way to Biblcally or physically prove that though so its likely reference to the creation of the water cycle.

And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear."

Why I disagree with Hovind. This sounds like Pangea (sp?) the super continent.

Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds."

this the third, day, God forms dry land and creates plants. Each plant reproduces according to its kind.

14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. 16 God made two great lights-the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness.

God creates the Sun, moon and stars on the fourth day.

20 And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky." 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind.

God creates the birds and fish on the fifth day. They are made to reproduce according to their own kind.

24 And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds.

26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, [2] and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.

God creates animals. Then God creates mankind separate and special, meaning for us to rule this planet. Each animal is to reproduce accoding to its own kind.

28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."
29 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground-everything that has the breath of life in it-I give every green plant for food." And it was so.

So we see our first command from God. Be fruitful and multiply, go and subdue the world. Here Adam and Eve and the animals are given plants to eat, not eachother.

There is no death for animals or man until the fall of man into sin. Then the ground is cursed, hence our current situation of total chaos and suffering on this planet.

Let me ask these questions directly.

Do you believe death and suffering could have occure before the fall?
Do you believe our ansestors are desended from animals and experienced death and suffering before the fall?
Do you believe in natural selection as the guide for God's evolution of animals?[/quote]

[Kurieuo]

You seem to be focusing in on the English word "day". The Hebrew, yom, on the other hand (translated into "day"), can literally refer to a 24 hour day, sunrise to sunset (12 hours), or a long, unspecified period of time.

Eh em, read my quote again, arguing the same thing I just presented back to me does not help your case unless you have a point.

My Basic Belief

God created the world in 6 day

I also believe God created in six days. The difference is you believe yom in the Genesis 1 should be literally taken as 24 hours, where as I believe the literal meaning should be unspecified periods of time. Yom has three literal meanings, and I think I provided some strong reasons (which remain unresponded to) for believing yom should be literally understood as unspecified periods of time.

Do you believe death and suffering could have occure before the fall?

Well would you agree plants died before the fall? Did God really not intend there to be any pain in His creation before the fall if He declared to Eve after, "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing" (emphasis on "increase" which implies pain priorly existed). Did God's intentions (God who is omnipotent) get defeated by Satan's? Is Satan more powerful than God? The consequential beliefs which follow from believing God never intended pain and suffering in this world are very unorthodox.

Do you believe our ansestors are desended from animals and experienced death and suffering before the fall?
Do you believe in natural selection as the guide for God's evolution of animals?

To your first question, no—I do not believe we humans are descended from animals.

To your second question I'd reply to some extent. Yet, AiG believe the same as I do, that natural selection and "evolution" is an obvious process but it also has obvious limitatations (see http://www.answersingenesis.org/creatio ... waters.asp). Infact AiG postulates extraordinarily fast evolving with the "kinds" of animals that were taken on Noah's ark (likely beyond what many evolutionists would dare postulate):

Creationists have long proposed such 'splitting under selection' from the original kinds, explaining for example wolves, coyotes, dingoes and other wild dogs from one pair on the Ark. The question of time has, however, been seized upon by anti-creationists. They insist that it would take a much longer time than Scripture allows. Artificial selection is quick, they admit, but that is because breeders are deliberately acting on each generation. The usual 'guesstimate' of how long it took for Darwin's finches to radiate from their parent population ranges from one million to five million years.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creatio ... inches.asp

Kurieuo.

[Anonymous]

I also believe God created in six days. The difference is you believe yom in the Genesis 1 should be literally taken as 24 hours, where as I believe the literal meaning should be unspecified periods of time. Yom has three literal meanings, and I think I provided some strong reasons (which remain unresponded to) for believing yom should be literally understood as unspecified periods of time.

actually, in the end, I'm starting to see that the passage of time is a tivial matter to what's really at stake here. If you wish to believe in more time, then I have no objection to that. It's like the two of us argueing about whether the sun goes around the earth. I don't agree with geocenterists that the Bible proves the sun goes around the earth, but am barely inclined to care. I'm seeing that having that view about this entire dispute was wrong. Some things are critical.

Well would you agree plants died before the fall? Did God really not intend there to be any pain in His creation before the fall if He declared to Eve after, "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing" (emphasis on "increase" which implies pain priorly existed). Did God's intentions (God who is omnipotent) get defeated by Satan's? Is Satan more powerful than God? The consequential beliefs which follow from believing God never intended pain and suffering in this world are very unorthodox.

Is it not written? Is it not the Lord's will that none should perish? But people do perish, in fact, they go to hell and endure agony such as never known, for all eternity, explain this. Is this to say that the Lord is defeated?

The existence of minor childbirth pains, (increased greatly), does not mean God made it so children had to go to empty homes because mothers died in child birth, and fathers went insane from the agony of the loss. That happens very often today in the cursed world of suffering and death. Nor do I believe parents had to watch their children die of illnesses that made them stay in bed for months of agony, and then suddenly leave this world forever in the middle of the night, leaving the parents to wonder if God really gave the child enough time to say good bye, when it just died in the darkness, alone. (Specifically, I don't even think there were children before the fall, -more a matter of a side coincidence though, since there's no reason to believe there couldn't have been, had Adam and Eve been inclined to have them at the time.-) I thought watching friends and family die was part of the curse of sin, and the consiquences of our actions which are destroying this world. It was about the only way I was ever able to reconsile such things with the existence of a loving and compasonite God. I thought all this hell on earth was the results and consiquences of our own greed and rebellion, not God just wanting to see how much he could hurt us. I always thought he at the very least, cared, and would never call such things, "good". Does it also mean to you, that the mentally handicapped existed in their current state as well, before the fall? People are often so deformed they can't even communicate and barely acknowledge the world around them but for the pain they often feel every day. Do you mean to tell me, that a loving merciful God called it good that they had to suffer like that? Someone is mentally one year old, but has to endure seisures and very painful constipation every day, and your God, calls that good? I thought that only happened because of mankind's rebellion being so great, that even our children and mentally retarded suffer because of it.

You dare to compare the pain and deaths of weeds to that of humans beings? Could you even proove to me that plants actually feel pain? Could you prove to me, that the Bible ever seems concerned about the deaths of plants?

To your first question, no—I do not believe we humans are descended from animals.

To your second question I'd reply to some extent. Yet, AiG believe the same as I do, that natural selection and "evolution" is an obvious process but it also has obvious limitatations (see http://www.answersingenesis.org/creatio ... waters.asp). Infact AiG postulates extraordinarily fast evolving with the "kinds" of animals that were taken on Noah's ark (likely beyond what many evolutionists would dare postulate):

At least we're not talking about coming from monkeys.
If AIG does say that natural selection occured before the fall of man, it is wrong, but I doubt you could ever show me an example of where it does. Natural selection only happens now. I have a very hard time believeing God annhilated the grand and overwhelming majority of His living creations, before the world was ever cursed.