Regarding OEC

Discussions on creation beliefs within Christianity, and topics related to creation.
User avatar
Kurieuo
Honored Member
Posts: 10038
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 6:25 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Progressive Creationist
Location: Qld, Australia

Post by Kurieuo »

voicingmaster wrote:
Kurieuo wrote: Genesis 2:19—
"Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name."
If that verse means the way you're trying to make it out to mean, then the scriptures would contradict. B/c earlier it states very clearly that anmals were made before humans. However, you're trying to say that they formed out of nothing after Adam was created.
I'm not trying to make it mean anyway, I'm just weaning out the true meaning. And this in no way suggests animals were created before humans. Many translators agree that Genesis 2 doesn't dictate order like chapter 1 appears to do, and that "formed" should be understood as a past act.

Kurieuo.
"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)
User avatar
Kurieuo
Honored Member
Posts: 10038
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 6:25 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Progressive Creationist
Location: Qld, Australia

Post by Kurieuo »

Mastermind wrote:
K wrote:It suggests God directly and intimately formed each one, as a potter forms a pot.
So it can also mean make? And I'd like to remind you that evolution is pretty much molding. If you accelerate the process, that's pretty much exactly what you would see.
Not make without the other meanings being implied. If evolution is pretty much molding, then it replaces God as the Molder. If you invoke God at every step in the evolutionary molding process, then what is evolution? It wouldn't be the same thing a materialist scientist would consider evolution.
MM wrote:I don't. I'm a bit unsure on the human part for now and thus keep it out of the discussion until i make a decision(which won't be any time soon as I haven't been feeling much like doing any research lately).
Fair enough.

Kurieuo.
"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)
User avatar
Mastermind
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1410
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2004 3:22 pm

Post by Mastermind »

Not make without the other meanings being implied. If evolution is pretty much molding, then it replaces God as the Molder.
*sigh*

Haven't we been through this before? Evolution =/= Naturalism

If you invoke God at every step in the evolutionary molding process, then what is evolution? It wouldn't be the same thing a materialist scientist would consider evolution.
And this is a problem because?
Are you threatening me Master Skeptic?
User avatar
Kurieuo
Honored Member
Posts: 10038
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 6:25 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Progressive Creationist
Location: Qld, Australia

Post by Kurieuo »

MM wrote:Haven't we been through this before? Evolution =/= Naturalism
I don't believe to this extent though.
Mastermind wrote:
K wrote:If you invoke God at every step in the evolutionary molding process, then what is evolution? It wouldn't be the same thing a materialist scientist would consider evolution.
And this is a problem because?
It's not a problem, but I don't see you're really advocating evolution if this is the case.

Kurieuo.
"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)
User avatar
Mastermind
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1410
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2004 3:22 pm

Post by Mastermind »

Kurieuo wrote: It's not a problem, but I don't see you're really advocating evolution if this is the case.

Kurieuo.
I'm advocating Evolution without the naturalism in it.
Are you threatening me Master Skeptic?
User avatar
Kurieuo
Honored Member
Posts: 10038
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 6:25 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Progressive Creationist
Location: Qld, Australia

Post by Kurieuo »

:lol: Which means what? ;)

Kurieuo
"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)
User avatar
Mastermind
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1410
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2004 3:22 pm

Post by Mastermind »

Kurieuo wrote::lol: Which means what? ;)

Kurieuo
That animals slowly transformed from an unicellular organism into what we see today.
Are you threatening me Master Skeptic?
User avatar
Kurieuo
Honored Member
Posts: 10038
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 6:25 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Progressive Creationist
Location: Qld, Australia

Post by Kurieuo »

And at each step of tranformation God was intervening to shape them?

Kurieuo
"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)
User avatar
Mastermind
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1410
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2004 3:22 pm

Post by Mastermind »

Kurieuo wrote:And at each step of tranformation God was intervening to shape them?

Kurieuo
Or He triggered the entire process and left it to unfold. Either one works for me.
Are you threatening me Master Skeptic?
User avatar
Kurieuo
Honored Member
Posts: 10038
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 6:25 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Progressive Creationist
Location: Qld, Australia

Post by Kurieuo »

But wouldn't that have "naturalism" in it then?
User avatar
Mastermind
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1410
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2004 3:22 pm

Post by Mastermind »

Kurieuo wrote:But wouldn't that have "naturalism" in it then?
No, becuase it is still the will of God. Hell, God can simply trigger the big bang in such a way that all life was bound to be created and it would still be His creation as far as I'm concerned. My problem is this:

What are Christians going to do if Atheists come up with an abiogenesis model that could have worked? If the idea that God triggered the whole thing is right, then at face value, we could not tell the difference between a divine creation and a naturalistic creation, and since so many theists try to disprove any possibility of it having been naturalistic, this could prove a huge blow to religion.
Are you threatening me Master Skeptic?
voicingmaster
Established Member
Posts: 144
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2005 11:24 pm

Post by voicingmaster »

Kurieuo wrote:I am also a little puzzled as to why you draw the line with humanity?
If humanity evolved from animals, then there would a bunch of other humans. Meaning Adam wouldn't need to have a rib removed to make Eve, b/c he could just pick from one of the other female humans in existence. However, Adam required a mate, implying no such mate existed, meaning he was the only human at that point.
User avatar
Kurieuo
Honored Member
Posts: 10038
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 6:25 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Progressive Creationist
Location: Qld, Australia

Post by Kurieuo »

Mastermind wrote:
Kurieuo wrote:But wouldn't that have "naturalism" in it then?
No, becuase it is still the will of God. Hell, God can simply trigger the big bang in such a way that all life was bound to be created and it would still be His creation as far as I'm concerned.
If God creates something, then lets it "naturally" unfold, it is a natural process. Now if God let the process unfold, God isn't at every step in the molding process or creation, rather it just unfolds naturally. It seems impossible to reconcile this with the direct creation of humanity and animals in Genesis 1 and 2 with the passages I've referenced. And if you advocate God directly intervening at each stage of the molding process as said several messages ago, then you don't really have evolution, rather you have creation.
MM wrote:My problem is this:

What are Christians going to do if Atheists come up with an abiogenesis model that could have worked? If the idea that God triggered the whole thing is right, then at face value, we could not tell the difference between a divine creation and a naturalistic creation, and since so many theists try to disprove any possibility of it having been naturalistic, this could prove a huge blow to religion.
So you're telling me you choose to accept to have all angles covered "just incase"? I'm sorry, but that seems like a cowardly way to come to a position. I'd much prefer to work with current information to develop my current position, rather than basing it out of ignorance of what "could" possibly be.

Now, we're discussing evolution and the amount of direct influence God had in creation. How does abiogenesis have anything to do with our discussion? Nevermind if a natural solution to abiogenesis was found it would also go against your postion that God just ignited life. You can't have it both ways here like you do with evolution. So it would also be a blow to Theistic Evolution. Getting back to evolution, a mechanism(s) isn't even decided upon that can reasonably explain the macroevolutionary changes necessary and the picture we see in the fossil record. Anyway, this is getting away from Scripture, which is what we were dealing with...

I think I've presented a strong enough Scriptural case to rule out anything other than God's direct and intimate creation of animals. Strong enough at least to make you consider that God was involved in every step of the evolutionary molding process. That is, until I began questioning how "evolution" had a role if God was involved at every step. After which you reverted back to God created everything and let it unravel. I think you need to consider your position better as it seems as though you're not really sure what you believe was God, and what you believe was natural, in the creation process.

Kurieuo.
"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)
User avatar
Mastermind
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1410
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2004 3:22 pm

Post by Mastermind »

If God creates something, then lets it "naturally" unfold, it is a natural process. Now if God let the process unfold, God isn't at every step in the molding process or creation, rather it just unfolds naturally.
No, it unfolds because God set the sequence in motion. It doesn't make it any more "natural" than any other chain reaction effect, simply because without the tampering of an intelligent being, it wouldn't have happened.

It seems impossible to reconcile this with the direct creation of humanity and animals in Genesis 1 and 2 with the passages I've referenced.
Your passages haven't proven anything. You simply took the translation that fits your position best and assumed it was absolute. I, on the other hand think it is too vague to assume that much, and since Genesis 1 clearly states God said "let the Earth... etc" it would be a contradiction to say God molded animals directly with His own hands in genesis 2. On the other hand, if the word in genesis 2 is simply translated as "make" it becomes perfectly acceptable.


And if you advocate God directly intervening at each stage of the molding process as said several messages ago, then you don't really have evolution, rather you have creation.
I have already defined evolution as the belief that animals turned from a single celled organism to what we see today. You're still debating naturalism even though you know damn well it isn't my position. I suggest you stop.
So you're telling me you choose to accept to have all angles covered "just incase"?
No.

I'm sorry, but that seems like a cowardly way to come to a position. I'd much prefer to work with current information to develop my current position, rather than basing it out of ignorance of what "could" possibly be.
tsk tsk didn't even wait to get my answer. You mean basing your position in terms of both scientific knowledge and the scripture and taking the position that fits both? Because that's what I'm doing.
Now, we're discussing evolution and the amount of direct influence God had in creation. How does abiogenesis have anything to do with our discussion? Nevermind if a natural solution to abiogenesis was found it would also go against your postion that God just ignited life. You can't have it both ways here like you do with evolution.
Not really. I can easily say God triggered it all at the big bang and life was bound to happen through a seemingly natural process (I believe it's the second time I'm saying this.

So it would also be a blow to Theistic Evolution.
Nope. Most TEs I've met believe God sparked life through a seemingly natural process already.
Getting back to evolution, a mechanism(s) isn't even decided upon that can reasonably explain the macroevolutionary changes necessary and the picture we see in the fossil record. Anyway, this is getting away from Scripture, which is what we were dealing with...
There is no such thing as microevolution and macroevolution. If you wish to discuss this further you can make a new topic.
I think I've presented a strong enough Scriptural case to rule out anything other than God's direct and intimate creation of animals. Strong enough at least to make you consider that God was involved in every step of the evolutionary molding process. That is, until I began questioning how "evolution" had a role if God was involved at every step. After which you reverted back to God created everything and let it unravel. I think you need to consider your position better as it seems as though you're not really sure what you believe was God, and what you believe was natural, in the creation process.
You presented your translation of Genesis out of many possible translations, and I see no reason why it should be set in stone, as noted above. Second, I didn't "revert" to anything. I said that whether God had a hand at every step or simply triggered it and left it to unfold is of no consequence to me. I'm rather surprised that you of all people would purposefully misinterpret my position like this.
Are you threatening me Master Skeptic?
User avatar
Kurieuo
Honored Member
Posts: 10038
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 6:25 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Progressive Creationist
Location: Qld, Australia

Post by Kurieuo »

Mastermind wrote:
If God creates something, then lets it "naturally" unfold, it is a natural process. Now if God let the process unfold, God isn't at every step in the molding process or creation, rather it just unfolds naturally.
No, it unfolds because God set the sequence in motion. It doesn't make it any more "natural" than any other chain reaction effect, simply because without the tampering of an intelligent being, it wouldn't have happened.
I suppose it comes down to a definition of "natural," but I find yours inadequate for if God created everything by setting it all in motion, then by your definition is seems nothing could ever be called natural. I think CS Lewis was correct to define "natural" as something left alone to its own state without intervention. For example, the natural state of a dog without flea powder is to have fleas. Anyway...
MM wrote:
K wrote:It seems impossible to reconcile this with the direct creation of humanity and animals in Genesis 1 and 2 with the passages I've referenced.
Your passages haven't proven anything. You simply took the translation that fits your position best and assumed it was absolute. I, on the other hand think it is too vague to assume that much, and since Genesis 1 clearly states God said "let the Earth... etc" it would be a contradiction to say God molded animals directly with His own hands in genesis 2. On the other hand, if the word in genesis 2 is simply translated as "make" it becomes perfectly acceptable.
And then the verse just after explicitly says "God made..." This is simply a literary device being used over and over: "God said let there be something" and then directly following "God made that something." Read the whole chapter again taking note of this literary trend. Genesis 2:19 is the clincher for me since God fashions animals out of the ground as intimately as a potter creates his pot. It seems entirely forced to try say this represents a natural process of evolution.
MM wrote:
K wrote:And if you advocate God directly intervening at each stage of the molding process as said several messages ago, then you don't really have evolution, rather you have creation.
I have already defined evolution as the belief that animals turned from a single celled organism to what we see today. You're still debating naturalism even though you know damn well it isn't my position. I suggest you stop.
I'm only going by what you write. I early said: "If you invoke God at every step in the evolutionary molding process, then what is evolution? It wouldn't be the same thing a materialist scientist would consider evolution." to which you responded, "And this is a problem because?" I fail to see what I took wrong.
MM wrote:
K wrote:So it would also be a blow to Theistic Evolution.
Nope. Most TEs I've met believe God sparked life through a seemingly natural process already.
I am then perplexed by the faith TEs appear to have in natural processes to explain everything, that they have prepared an unfaultable position. To me, if something can be explained naturally, then it seems like folly to say God did it in a hidden way (i.e., naturally).
MM wrote:
K wrote: Getting back to evolution, a mechanism(s) isn't even decided upon that can reasonably explain the macroevolutionary changes necessary and the picture we see in the fossil record. Anyway, this is getting away from Scripture, which is what we were dealing with...
There is no such thing as microevolution and macroevolution. If you wish to discuss this further you can make a new topic.
This is just common garbage you've brought into perhaps reading an evolution vs. creation debate or something. The fact one can explain how microevolution happens, and the mechanism by which it happens, is not something that can be extroplated to just "any" change. For microevolution is bounded by what already exists within the genetic code. For example, skin on our hands will get tougher and harder as we work with them as such is a natural adaptation within our biological code. Macroevolutionary change requires additional information not present in the genetic code. If a fish doesn't have coding for feet, how does this non-existing code get developed? Such is up to macroevolutionary theories to explain.

Anyway, it seems you still need more time coming off evolution so I'll leave it for now. ;)

Kurieuo.
"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)
Post Reply