Evidence for God from Science

Hi everyone!

My name is Jo, I am a Christian. I am really trying hard to figure out what I believe about creation. I was toying with both YEC and TE are different points and wound up somewhere in the middle as a progressive creationist. I guess I would say, I definitely believe in an old earth and a historical Adam and Eve. I am still considering TE, although I really feel uncomfortable of the non-literal Adam and Eve (I know this is not the position that all TEs take). What are your thoughts on creationism?

Hi Jo,

There are many members here, and we have differing views on creation. I'm not sure if you've seen it yet, but a good place to do research, is on the home site.

The website's owner, Rich Deem, has some informative articles there.

And FYI, there are some TEs who do believe in a literal Adam and Eve.

If you have any specific questions, ask away.

And welcome to the board.

Edit: and Jo, to avoid confusion, you may want to check off "Christian" in your profile.

Okay, My specific questions:

How do we relate neanderthals with the rest of humanity?
What about Eden, where was it?
I guess I am having a really hard time with what-if questions and doubts. All the conflicting views on creation are causing me some serious anxiety, I have to say!

I did check out the main website and I really think it is great. I took a look at the progressive creationism article by Dale Tooley and I would say I pretty much hold that view.

ritterjo19 wrote:Okay, My specific questions:

How do we relate neanderthals with the rest of humanity?
What about Eden, where was it?
I guess I am having a really hard time with what-if questions and doubts. All the conflicting views on creation are causing me some serious anxiety, I have to say!

I did check out the main website and I really think it is great. I took a look at the progressive creationism article by Dale Tooley and I would say I pretty much hold that view.

As far as progressive creationism, Reasons.org is probably the leading website. Here's the results of searching for "Neanderthal" on their site:
http://www.reasons.org/Search?q=Neanderthal+

ritterjo19 wrote:Okay, My specific questions:

How do we relate neanderthals with the rest of humanity?
What about Eden, where was it?
I guess I am having a really hard time with what-if questions and doubts. All the conflicting views on creation are causing me some serious anxiety, I have to say!

I did check out the main website and I really think it is great. I took a look at the progressive creationism article by Dale Tooley and I would say I pretty much hold that view.

It depends on whatever creation theory you accept.To a Gap Theorist Neanderthals were apart of a pre-Adamic race of beings that lived in the former world as were hominids also.They were not man though because God created Adam and Eve and so they were new creations after he restored the earth making it habitable again after Genesis 1:3 in Genesis chapter 1.What happened in the former world has no bearing on what happens in this world we now live in.We must all accept Jesus as our Savior and Lord because we have all sinned and come short of the glory of God.

My 2 cents worth...

Most important thing to recall when investigating creation accounts hypotheses are they are all educated guesses. I suggest to avoid militant dogmatic creationist of any venue of opinion on these grounds...


1 John 2:9,10, "The one who says he is in the Light and yet hates his brother is in the darkness until now. 10 The one who loves his brother abides in the Light and there is no cause for stumbling in him." NASB

The Greek word translated hates in the text, μισέω miséō, denotes a persecuting spirit implying disdain, contempt, ill words, unbecoming hostile tone in words and actions....

The point is a persecuting spirit that brow beats and intimidates, therefore, next note these verses:

James 3:13-18, Who is wise and understanding among you? Let him show by good conduct that his works are done in the meekness of wisdom. 14 But if you have bitter envy and self-seeking in your hearts, do not boast and lie against the truth. 15 This wisdom does not descend from above, but is earthly, sensual, demonic.

16, For where envy and self-seeking exist, confusion and every evil thing are there.

17 But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, willing to yield, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality and without hypocrisy. 18 Now the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace by those who make peace. NKJV

In such discussion involving creation theories remember these things as a tree is known by its fruit...
-
-
-

ritterjo19 wrote:Okay, My specific questions:

How do we relate neanderthals with the rest of humanity?
What about Eden, where was it?
I guess I am having a really hard time with what-if questions and doubts. All the conflicting views on creation are causing me some serious anxiety, I have to say!

I did check out the main website and I really think it is great. I took a look at the progressive creationism article by Dale Tooley and I would say I pretty much hold that view.

Neanderthals were fully human just like us. Would you consider a brown bear and a polar bear to be both bears, more specifically in the genus Ursidae? Because they are. Ik, rather poor analogy, but Neanderthals had a culture that involved painting, burial, fairly complex tool use, made clothes, and basing indirectly they could speak like us. I'd say they were human, in need of salvation.
The same question can be asked for other non Homo Sapien humans (or hominids, but I dislike that term). Was Homo Erectus human? They seem to fit the bill, they apparently even had language and could make sea faring vessels, but they were quite primitive compared to even many primitive Homo Sapien tribes. I think they were, but I digress.
We don't know for sure where Eden was, but the general idea, based on references to the rivers Euphrates, Tigris, Pishon and Gihon, is that it was in the middle east, around Iraq. I think it could've extended to East Africa, where interestingly we see the oldest human fossils so far found in the region where the river Gihon went around, which was Cush (now Sudan, South Sudan, Ethopia, and maybe Kenya).

ritterjo19 wrote:Hi everyone!

My name is Jo, I am a Christian. I am really trying hard to figure out what I believe about creation. I was toying with both YEC and TE are different points and wound up somewhere in the middle as a progressive creationist. I guess I would say, I definitely believe in an old earth and a historical Adam and Eve. I am still considering TE, although I really feel uncomfortable of the non-literal Adam and Eve (I know this is not the position that all TEs take). What are your thoughts on creationism?

There are more conservative types of TE that allow for special creation events such as described in the bible- some plants on day 3, the first sea life and also birds (which could include insects and flying reptiles, i'm not sure) on day 5, some land animals and then humans on day 6. They all reproduced after their kind, and according to biology evolution is "populations changing over time", which actually fits with the creation account well. And I haven't got to the time span of the days, that's another story. A literal Adam and Eve, like what Paul and Jesus said, would work here.
FYI, I dk about how some Christians accept the whole tree of life, and I suppose that's ok, though I don't see how it fits all that well unless one says the first chapter was just a story and nothing else.

thatkidakayoungguy wrote:

ritterjo19 wrote:Hi everyone!

My name is Jo, I am a Christian. I am really trying hard to figure out what I believe about creation. I was toying with both YEC and TE are different points and wound up somewhere in the middle as a progressive creationist. I guess I would say, I definitely believe in an old earth and a historical Adam and Eve. I am still considering TE, although I really feel uncomfortable of the non-literal Adam and Eve (I know this is not the position that all TEs take). What are your thoughts on creationism?

There are more conservative types of TE that allow for special creation events such as described in the bible- some plants on day 3, the first sea life and also birds (which could include insects and flying reptiles, i'm not sure) on day 5, some land animals and then humans on day 6. They all reproduced after their kind, and according to biology evolution is "populations changing over time", which actually fits with the creation account well. And I haven't got to the time span of the days, that's another story. A literal Adam and Eve, like what Paul and Jesus said, would work here.
FYI, I dk about how some Christians accept the whole tree of life, and I suppose that's ok, though I don't see how it fits all that well unless one says the first chapter was just a story and nothing else.

The only people who accept the tree of life are people who accept evolution and Theistic evolutionists .There is somehow this myth out there that just because a person is an old earth creationist they accept evolution,but this is not true.It was known the earth was old and not young long before evolution became a scientific theory and it was Christians who were geologists,etc that discovered it.It was not decided the earth is old because of evolution like is believed by certian creationists.The fact is,is Charles Darwin took the known evidence at the time and came up with a very persuasive case for evolution based on the known evidence at the time.Gap Theorists have never accepted evolution and The Gap Theory was being taught in the Christian church long before Charles Darwin began pushing evolution.

My theory of evolution, is that Darwin was adopted.

RickD wrote:My theory of evolution, is that Darwin was adopted.

My theory is that Darwin knew it was bunk but he wanted to beat Lamarck to the evolution punch.

From what I've researched, evolution means basically "populations changing over time". I personally don't agree with the tree of life but populations certainly have changed. All we need to do is to look at the new medicine that attacks new strands of germs every year. That said, I think humans will always be humans, not some grey alien or whatnot like some people think.

thatkidakayoungguy wrote:From what I've researched, evolution means basically "populations changing over time". I personally don't agree with the tree of life but populations certainly have changed. All we need to do is to look at the new medicine that attacks new strands of germs every year. That said, I think humans will always be humans, not some grey alien or whatnot like some people think.

Do you accept evolution or not?It seems like you kinda do,but really don't.I don't agree with the tree of life either.I acknowledge that there is normal variation amongst a population but this is not evolution.I cannot find even one example of any life evolving above the species level eventhough there is normal variation amongst each population. This is why I reject evolution because scientists still do not know if life evolves despite what seems to be a mountain of evidence behind it.As far as I can tell,it is just a bunch of assumption,imagination and pure belief evolution is true,but they have never even once shown life evolving above the species level.

If I read this right there has been at least one documented instance of animals evolving beyond the species level, http://discovermagazine.com/2015/march/ ... -fast-lane
Scientists are almost certain (by this I mean that over 90% of them acknowledge it) that it has happened. Still I don't think we came from apes, something just doesn't seem right about that.

What's the issue with the tree of life:
Genesis 3:22-24