The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

Onesimus

Do you think these Dinosaurs were made extinct due to this flood? and thats how that came to be?

Onesimus

soterpisc

Onesimus wrote: »

Do you think these Dinosaurs were made extinct due to this flood? and thats how that came to be?

Onesimus

The flood took place sometimes in the last 50,000 years. It would have been local, not universal ( i think a giant tsunami) but no its long long after dinosaurs, they were extinct before man.

Zombrex

Onesimus wrote: »

Do you think these Dinosaurs were made extinct due to this flood? and thats how that came to be?

Onesimus

There is a Creationism thread some where for questions to those who take Genesis literally. It is pretty big, but that question and others were covered in it.

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

J C

Newsflash ... animal life has been around for 450 million evolutionist years less than thought up to now!!!
http://communications.nuim.ie/press/251120112.shtml
Quote: "Their research tackled the puzzling question of why the fossil record – which dates back only to the ‘Cambrian Explosion’ of 500 million years ago when multitudes of complex life forms began to emerge did not tally with the emerging science of molecular biology, which based on studying DNA mutations suggested that animals should have been around 740 million years earlier than that."

... if you take the 'timetree of life' website (www.timetree.org), this presents as the “expert opinion” that the last common animal ancestor was around 1,237 million years ago ... which is 737 million evolutionist years more that is now thought to be the case!!!
... the Evolutionists are moving in the right direction, as they rapidly revise their dates downwards!!!:):D

The reason that there is such a massive 'dating' divergence is because it all happened very recently indeed!!!

Of course, the reality is that all life was actually created within the last 10,000 years by a loving and just God ... who will Save of Judge us when we die ... and the choice of which you want is entirely up to you!!!.:D

J C

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

cheers.
it must have been big?

It was!!!:)

Waestrel

look like this thread is dying. No harm either, this discussion never goes anywhere.

JC, your faith has taught me a lot about religion!

J C

Waestrel wrote: »

look like this thread is dying. No harm either, this discussion never goes anywhere.

JC, your faith has taught me a lot about religion!

I have yet to see any thread that 'goes anywhere' in the sense that everybody agrees on the topic!!!
... but the truth is usually obvious to everybody ... except those in complete denial.


We all have Faith ... for some it's well-founded (e.g. Direct Creation) ... and for others it's completely unfounded (e.g. Spontaneous Evolution).

Waestrel wrote: »

JC, your faith has taught me a lot about religion!

... and the Atheist Humanist religion has taught me a lot about their faith!!!:D

J C

soterpisc wrote: »

The flood took place sometimes in the last 50,000 years. It would have been local, not universal ( i think a giant tsunami) but no its long long after dinosaurs, they were extinct before man.

It was universal ... and that is proven by the worldwide distribution of sedimentary and metamorphic rocks.
... and it was only about 8,000 years ago ... and that is why modern recorded Human history begins about 8,000 years ago!!!

facemelter

Hello there im looking for some links or some unbiased views of creationism , what it is , what it's about etc , the reason that im posting here is that every time i try and search for some unbiased link or descriptions i either get something along the lines of . there was a big bang and then god did some stuff . or the opposite of " its a ll bollucks "! , not saying i believe in it or i object to it i just want facts , also feel free to tell me below what you think of it , if you believe , or if you object ! thanks very much !

Festus

Unbiased? Good luck with that. Everything will be biased according ones Faith in God or faith in there being no God.
Best bet for an unbiased view would be to ask God.

For what it's worth this would be the Catholic view.

The Catholic Position

What is the Catholic position concerning belief or unbelief in evolution? The question may never be finally settled, but there are definite parameters to what is acceptable Catholic belief.

Concerning cosmological evolution, the Church has infallibly defined that the universe was specially created out of nothing. Vatican I solemnly defined that everyone must "confess the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, as regards their whole substance, have been produced by God from nothing" (Canons on God the Creator of All Things, canon 5).

The Church does not have an official position on whether the stars, nebulae, and planets we see today were created at that time or whether they developed over time (for example, in the aftermath of the Big Bang that modern cosmologists discuss). However, the Church would maintain that, if the stars and planets did develop over time, this still ultimately must be attributed to God and his plan, for Scripture records: "By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and all their host [stars, nebulae, planets] by the breath of his mouth" (Ps. 33:6).

Concerning biological evolution, the Church does not have an official position on whether various life forms developed over the course of time. However, it says that, if they did develop, then they did so under the impetus and guidance of God, and their ultimate creation must be ascribed to him.

Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul. Pope Pius XII declared that "the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God" (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36). So whether the human body was specially created or developed, we are required to hold as a matter of Catholic faith that the human soul is specially created; it did not evolve, and it is not inherited from our parents, as our bodies are.

While the Church permits belief in either special creation or developmental creation on certain questions, it in no circumstances permits belief in atheistic evolution.

From: http://www.catholic.com/tracts/adam-eve-and-evolution

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

Peregrinus

Creationism is basically an ideological position; the only reason why anybody professes creationist views is because of a faith-based conviction that the Book of Genesis, read as a historical account, is factually true.

Scientific critiques of creationism aim to be factual, and I think probably many of them are. Your confidence in the impartiality of a scientific critique may be enhanced if it comes from a believer rather than an unbeliever, but basically you should be looking for a critique from someone with good scientific credentials.

(I'm not saying that an unbeliever can't offer an impartial critique of creationism; of course he can. The question is, can somebody know that the critique is impartial, and not motivated by animus towards religious belief? With a critique from a believer, at least one possible bias is rendered less likely.)

Gurgle

Evolution, big bang, creationism and intelligent design are not mutually exclusive. Its relatively easy to incorporate them all into the same world view.

What you may be referring to OP is literal 7-day creationism, where the sun, sky, ground, fish etc were actually called into being on successive days six thousand years ago by a voice inthe sky.

That would be the exclusive preserve of hardline fundamentalists.

tommy2bad

Gurgle wrote: »

Evolution, big bang, creationism and intelligent design are not mutually exclusive. Its relatively easy to incorporate them all into the same world view.
Good luck with that !
What you may be referring to OP is literal 7-day creationism, where the sun, sky, ground, fish etc were actually called into being on successive days six thousand years ago by a voice inthe sky.

That would be the exclusive preserve of hardline fundamentalists.

Anyone promoting creationism over evolution is either a liar or fool, have nothing to do with any of them.
Having said that, some people dont care which it is and adopt creationism because it gives them a world view that their comfortable with. They believe in 7 day creation literally because it works as a metaphor for how they feel.

Zombrex

facemelter wrote: »

Hello there im looking for some links or some unbiased views of creationism , what it is , what it's about etc , the reason that im posting here is that every time i try and search for some unbiased link or descriptions i either get something along the lines of . there was a big bang and then god did some stuff . or the opposite of " its a ll bollucks "! , not saying i believe in it or i object to it i just want facts , also feel free to tell me below what you think of it , if you believe , or if you object ! thanks very much !

Depends on what you mean by "unbiased".

If you simply want to know what Creationists believe, irrespective of whether it is true or not (it isn't, but by the sounds of it you already realize that) then these sites can help you out.

http://www.answersingenesis.com
http://www.icr.org/
http://www.creationresearch.org/

dvae

Given that the bible is the inspired word of god , i guess i have to take the Genesis account as fact. there was a time when i would of questioned Genesis and creation but, whats the point, if you put your faith in god all questions will be eventually answered.
personally i don't believe that the world and all its wonders were made in 6 24 hour days. i believe that maybe god made the world in perhaps 6 different stages, with each stage been maybe thousands or millions of years apart. sort of like when building a house. the first day i cleared the site, this took several days. then on the second day i layed a foundation, this took 3 day to dig and lay. on the third day i started the block work, this took several weeks and, so forth.
another point that is often over looked, the first sin was created by Adam in Genesis. if Genesis was to be taken figuratively and not literally then there would of been no need for Jesus to come down to the earth to die as a ransom for Adams sin.

token56

dvae wrote: »

Given that the bible is the inspired word of god , i guess i have to take the Genesis account as fact.

Without trying to derail this thread I just have to question this as it seems to be a massive contradiction (discussing of the rest of your post is probably best suited to one of the mega threads).

Had you said, given that the bible is the word of god, I have to take Genesis as fact, that could be taken as consistent. But if you accept the bible was inspired by the word of god, then presumably you can see that not everything should be taken as fact, given that it is men's interpretation of gods words and they are not literally gods words?

tommy2bad

dvae;

sort of like when building a house. the first day i cleared the site, this took several days. then on the second day i layed a foundation, this took 3 day to dig and lay. on the third day i started the block work, this took several weeks and, so forth.

Tradesmans time, like ' be with you monday' but wont say which monday.

if Genesis was to be taken figuratively and not literally then there would of been no need for Jesus to come down to the earth to die as a ransom for Adams sin.

No, their would still be a reason it just wouldn't be about a Granny Smith.
I'm sorry but if you insist on taking Genesis literally and then qualify that with 1 day = a period in time how do you not see the sin part as allegorical too?

facemelter

Gurgle wrote: »

Evolution, big bang, creationism and intelligent design are not mutually exclusive. Its relatively easy to incorporate them all into the same world view.

What you may be referring to OP is literal 7-day creationism, where the sun, sky, ground, fish etc were actually called into being on successive days six thousand years ago by a voice inthe sky.

That would be the exclusive preserve of hardline fundamentalists.

thats would be more or less what i meant !! :P yeah i was just curious !

Morbert

Any scientific Journal on Evolutionary biology will give you an "unbiased" view.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMvMb90hem8

Fast-forward to 1:00

Fanny Cradock

Creationist is a slippery term. It can refer to young earth creationists, old earth creationists (Christians, Muslims, Jews etc. could be included in here), advocates of Intelligent Design in all its flavours (interestingly some of whom are atheists) or evolutionists (again, there are different types).

I would think that all Christians, and probably many theists, would be creationist insofar as they believe that God (whatever they understand God to be) created the universe. The question of how we actually understand books like Genesis is what divides us.

For my part, I think that the most interesting critique of young and old earth creationism has actually come from within Christianity.

dvae

token56 wrote: »

Had you said, given that the bible is the word of god, I have to take Genesis as fact, that could be taken as consistent. But if you accept the bible was inspired by the word of god, then presumably you can see that not everything should be taken as fact, given that it is men's interpretation of gods words and they are not literally gods words?

the bible contains words of man but, blessed or approved by god. Jesus himself often used the words "it is written" when referring to scripture.
i am also reminded of Jeremiah 1:9 where it says "Then the Lord reached out his hand and touched my mouth and said to me, “Now, I have put my words in your mouth".
there are parts of the bible that obviously should not be taken literally such as when Jesus says"And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away".
the bible is gods holy word. God dictated, and man wrote it down, similar to a boss dictating to a sectary, but in holy and inspired way.

Cossax

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Creationist is a slippery term. It can refer to young earth creationists, old earth creationists (Christians, Muslims, Jews etc. could be included in here), advocates of Intelligent Design in all its flavours (interestingly some of whom are atheists) or evolutionists (again, there are different types).

I would think that all Christians, and probably many theists, would be creationist insofar as they believe that God (whatever they understand God to be) created the universe. The question of how we actually understand books like Genesis is what divides us.

For my part, I think that the most interesting critique of young and old earth creationism has actually come from within Christianity.

I'd be curious as to how someone who doesn't believe in a deity can believe in intelligent design?

Benny_Cake

dvae wrote: »

the bible contains words of man but, blessed or approved by god. Jesus himself often used the words "it is written" when referring to scripture.
i am also reminded of Jeremiah 1:9 where it says "Then the Lord reached out his hand and touched my mouth and said to me, “Now, I have put my words in your mouth".
there are parts of the bible that obviously should not be taken literally such as when Jesus says"And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away".
the bible is gods holy word. God dictated, and man wrote it down, similar to a boss dictating to a sectary, but in holy and inspired way.

There is a big difference between saying that "the bible contains the words of men blessed or approved by God" and saying that God dictated the bible like a boss would to his secretary. You seem to be arguing in favour of both descriptions of the inspiration of the bible? Also, in both of your examples above, it is apparent that the example from Jeremiah should not be taken literally either, unless you are saying that God "literally" reached out his hand and put words in his mouth, which I would imagine few Christians believe.

uck51js9zml2yt

since this is the Christianity forum and I assume people here believe in god,why would people not think it possible for Him to creAte everything in 6 days and rest on the 7th.
if He can't do.that then how can he do anything else?

Peregrinus

Astrid Quick Case wrote: »

since this is the Christianity forum and I assume people here believe in god,why would people not think it possible for Him to creAte everything in 6 days and rest on the 7th.
if He can't do.that then how can he do anything else?

He can do that. The thing is, the evidence points strongly to the conclusion that he didn't.

tommy2bad

Astrid Quick Case wrote: »

since this is the Christianity forum and I assume people here believe in god,why would people not think it possible for Him to creAte everything in 6 days and rest on the 7th.
if He can't do.that then how can he do anything else?

Christians don't think He couldn't do that, we don't think He did because the evidence is that the universe was created in a big bang and the laws of physics did the rest. Just as awe inspiring as a finger click creation and more wonderful as it allows for so many variables. God is not as rigid as was once presumed and far more creative.

Gumbi

Hi, JC. Where have all the dinosaurs gone in the past several thousand years?

Gurgle

Gumbi wrote: »

Where have all the dinosaurs gone in the past several thousand years?

buuuurrrp!
dunno