Do creationists accept biology?

[Subduction Zone]

Nor God denying ignorant naysaying. Magic is anything above the paygrade of manscience of today.

Now now dad, you are forgetting that Ninth Commandment again. How can anyone take a Christian seriously that does not value that Commandment.

Try again.

 

[Deeje]

No. We don't. I do not say my granny died one day in the morning and really mean that she died a millions years from now and it was at night.

Read Genesis 2:4 and you will see that the word "day" is used for the entirety of creation. The Hebrew word is "yowm" and though it can mean a 24 hour period, it is also used for indefinite periods.
At Genesis 3:5 it says that in the "day" that humans ate from the forbidden tree, they would die. Did they die within a 24 hour period? Adam lived to 930 years. But in accord with God's counting of a "day", 2 Peter 3:8 says that 'a "day" to God is like a thousand years' to us.

At Genesis 6:5 it uses the word to describe the wickedness of man in Noah's day as something continual.

The Genesis "days" were not 24 hour days. Creation took a very long time.

To God it does, He said several times the evening and the morning WERE the first day..second day etc.

Absolute made up hogwash.

The Bible agrees with provable science....the two do not fight. The earth and the Universe are not merely thousands of years old. The fossils are not just a few thousand years old either. There were no dinosaurs on the ark. Interpreting everything in Genesis literally just makes a mockery of God's word. There is no timeframe between Genesis 1:1 and what follows....it could have been millions of years.

"Evening and morning" simply denote a beginning and an end of an indefinite period of time. Its that simple.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Read Genesis 2:4 and you will see that the word "day" is used for the entirety of creation. The Hebrew word is "yowm" and though it can mean a 24 hour period, it is also used for indefinite periods.
At Genesis 3:5 it says that in the "day" that humans ate from the forbidden tree, they would die. Did they die within a 24 hour period? Adam lived to 930 years. But in accord with God's counting of a "day", 2 Peter 3:8 says that 'a "day" to God is like a thousand years' to us.

At Genesis 6:5 it uses the word to describe the wickedness of man in Noah's day as something continual.

The Genesis "days" were not 24 hour days. Creation took a very long time.



The Bible agrees with provable science....the two do not fight. The earth and the Universe are not merely thousands of years old. The fossils are not just a few thousand years old either. There were no dinosaurs on the ark. Interpreting everything in Genesis literally just makes a mockery of God's word. There is no timeframe between Genesis 1:1 and what follows....it could have been millions of years.

"Evening and morning" simply denote a beginning and an end of an indefinite period of time. Its that simple.

No science is "provable". But if your standard is "proven beyond a reasonable doubt" then you just claimed that the Bible supports the theory of evolution.

 

[dad]

Read Genesis 2:4 and you will see that the word "day" is used for the entirety of creation. The Hebrew word is "yowm" and though it can mean a 24 hour period, it is also used for indefinite periods.
At Genesis 3:5 it says that in the "day" that humans ate from the forbidden tree, they would die. Did they die within a 24 hour period? Adam lived to 930 years. But in accord with God's counting of a "day", 2 Peter 3:8 says that 'a "day" to God is like a thousand years' to us.

At Genesis 6:5 it uses the word to describe the wickedness of man in Noah's day as something continual.

The Genesis "days" were not 24 hour days. Creation took a very long time.

Knowing such doubts would come one day, as mentioned, God cleared that up with each and every day bu adding that this day consisted of a morning and evening.We see He walked in the garden in the cool of the day. Not sure if you thin He was strolling there for millions of years?! But in case someone is also confused with what years are, He gave us the years Adam lived.

The Bible agrees with provable science..

Of course, and that has no connection to so called origin sciences that are religious nonsense.

"Evening and morning" simply denote a beginning and an end of an indefinite period of time. Its that simple.

The years and days are given and the mornings and evenings cannot be stretched mindlessly to infinity to suit some folks who have trouble believing what is actually said.
Later in Genesis we see ample clarification for morning or evening..example

Ge 24:11 -And he made his camels to kneel down without the city by a well of water at the time of the evening, even the time that women go out to draw water.

It is no less ludicrous to say that they camels knelt for millions of years than to claim an evening earlier in the chapter was.

 

[Yerda]

Hi. I've looked at all the hypotheses used to support the idea that all life came from one common ancestor. That's one reason why I don't believe in the idea.
Do you realize, the theory is quite circular - it starts with an idea, and then follows with a series of other ideas which lead back to the previous? It really cannot be proven.
Rather, it is built on a structure that is religion is accused of standing on. Which would make it a philosophy.
Don't you find that to be the case?

DNA is far more sophisticated than we think, imo.
I can only think of it as being designed by an intelligence whose knowledge is way higher than any human, and I think that any programmer would appreciate that conclusion, if they are reasonable.

You probably have an idea of what goes into designing a computer that writes various languages simultaneously. I don't think any one man can do that. He would be considered, out of this world - super.
Yet, a team has put together a Multilanguage Electronic Publishing System, that prints in 600 languages simultaneously.
It takes intelligence.
Wouldn't you agree?

Hi, again.

So, the idea that there's a common ancestor for all life. To my knowledge it isn't a foregone conclusion that every species alive descended from the same ancestor. It's possible that it isn't the case. What would you say you found to be circular in particular?

What do you make of the opposite hypothesis? That there are multiple ancestors for the life at present. What do you think would be evidence of that?


DNA and its code nature are amazing to me. Ok then. Let's say for the sake of discussion that DNA was designed, and it was God who designed it. Do you know anything about how it functions?

 

[Yerda]

I do not find it beautiful to be descended from slimy germs or bugs or from animals. I find that insulting. Insulting to God, who fashioned us in His image, and gave us scripture telling us how. But you may find your religion beautiful if you like. It is not fact or evidence based. It is a regimented fusion of beliefs splattered thoroughly over evidences, and has been maliciously called science.

I can't say I understand your perspective.

 

[Yerda]

Thank you so much for your reasonable reply....I will try to give you a reasonable response.

Hi, again.

I read your whole post but I've only quoted the bits I wanted to respond to right now. If there are any parts that you want me to look at feel free to say. I'll chat about most anything.

We see the adaptive abilities of all creatures as something pre-programmed into all living things by a thoughtful Creator. Something that is very obvious in creation, is that God loves variety, and changing environment or food source is a trigger for adaptation. But we never see adaptation producing anything but a new variety of an existing creature.

Ok. So this relates to the OP and the reason I started the thread.

Let's put the macro-evolution question to one side for now. How do you feel about the biology that underlies a given adaptation? By that I mean, are you ok with the idea that adaptive changes often have some genetic basis?

I can't really agree that we "aren't quite so spectacularly unique".....I believe that the gulf between humans and any ape puts us in a whole other category when it comes to our unique human abilities and characteristics.
Does science really have the evidence to suggest that we are nothing but smart apes? Are we just hominids?

Perhaps this will explain better than I can....
Has All Life Descended From a Common Ancestor? — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

We are very much on our own in terms of the species alive right now. What I'm suggesting is that there were other species, some human some ape, that have lived in the fairly recent past that appear to have been much more like us. Sadly they aren't around anymore but it looks as though they were here and it looks as though some of them cooked, made and wore clothes, made art, had their own cultural world, maybe even buried their dead.

None of this is set in stone. It might turn out that none of them did these things but there does seem to be some evidence for it. Again this ties into the thread. Do you accept the evidence for the extinct hominids?

Can you explain instinct? How does a bird know how to build a nest specific to their species, when they were not even around to learn how to do it from their parents? Same with their courtship dances...who taught them to do that dance before they were even conceived?

How do butterflies or birds (or whales) know to migrate at a certain time of year, to a specific point on a map thousands of miles away? Why do salmon expend an enormous amount of energy swimming upstream to their spawning grounds, only to die there after ensuring the perpetuation of their species?

How do you assume that instinct isn't a program that was designed by an intelligent mind? Can you assume that intelligent design requires no designer? I can't. That is science's fantasy IMO.

Nice talking to you.....

I don't know the answers to these. I don't even know if anyone else does. There is some evidence to suggest that behaviours have genetic bases. Though it's very complicated and way above my grade. Would you agree that it is possible for behaviours to be selected?

Nice talking to you, too.[/QUOTE]

 

[Astrophile]

If God makes any request or command for a Christian, through his anointed - the Messiah, who proved to be Jesus Christ, as a Christian, I take the stand the apostles, or followers of Christ take (Acts 5:29).

Let me try another example. According to Numbers 5:11-31, when a man suspects that his wife has been unfaithful and is pregnant by another man, he must impose a trial by ordeal, and make his wife drink 'the water that brings out the truth'. (No such ordeal is required to be imposed on a husband who is suspected of infidelity.) If the woman has been unfaithful, drinking this water will bring on an abortion. If you suspected that your wife had been unfaithful, would you impose this Biblically-required test, or would you compromise and allow the matter to be handled by the present laws of the United States?

The example set by Daniel, and his three companions who were given the Babylonian names Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, apply today, as well.
(Daniel 3:16-18) Respectfully...
Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego,answered the king: “O Nebuchadnezzar, we have no need to answer you in this matter. If it must be, our God whom we serve is able to rescue us from the burning fiery furnace, O king, and to rescue us from your hand. But even if he does not, let it be known to you, O king, that we will not serve your gods or worship the image of gold that you have set up.”

Daniel was thrown to the lions. The early Christians were beaten... thrown into arenas to be torn by beast.... crucified... burned to death... What did that accomplish? Nothing.
Christians today don't compromise.

Have you any evidence that the book of Daniel is anything but a pious fiction written at the time of the Maccabean rebellion? From what I have read (see, for example, Catherine Nixey, The Darkening Age, chapter 4 and 5) the stories of persecutions of the early Christians are exaggerated; in particular, the only persecutions sanctioned by the Emperor were those of Nero, Decius, Valerian and Diocletian, and the Decian persecution was not directed specifically against Christians.

What do you think of Muhammad Ali... do you think he should have gone against his conscious and values?
In 1966, Ali refused to be drafted into the military, citing his religious beliefs and opposition to the Vietnam War. He was arrested, found guilty of draft evasion, and stripped of his boxing titles.

I can respect Muhammad Ali's principles and his actions. However, would you feel the same way about an atheist who refused to be drafted into the military because he was opposed to the Vietnam War or to all wars? Would you applaud him, or would you think that he deserved his punishment? What would you think about a British person in 1939 who refused to join the armed forces because he approved of Hitler's policies? Do you think that such a person should follow his conscience and his values, or do you think rather that his values were evil and that he should be forced to accept the error of his ways?

Look at another situation, if you were ordered to do something that you considered terribly wrong, and someone in authority pointed a gun at your head, and told you, "Do it! Or else." Would you?

I don't know; I don't suppose that such a situation would ever arise in modern Britain. Perhaps if the person with the gun was telling me to go into a school and teach the pupils that the Earth is flat, that the sky is a solid vault, that the Earth is stationary with the Sun, planets and stars revolving around it, or that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old, I might prefer being shot to doing such a thing. Otherwise, as I say, I can't imagine ever being put in such a situation.

 

[dad]

I can't say I understand your perspective.

I can't say you do either.

 

[Deeje]

Knowing such doubts would come one day, as mentioned, God cleared that up with each and every day bu adding that this day consisted of a morning and evening.We see He walked in the garden in the cool of the day. Not sure if you thin He was strolling there for millions of years?! But in case someone is also confused with what years are, He gave us the years Adam lived.
Of course, and that has no connection to so called origin sciences that are religious nonsense.



The years and days are given and the mornings and evenings cannot be stretched mindlessly to infinity to suit some folks who have trouble believing what is actually said.
Later in Genesis we see ample clarification for morning or evening..example

Ge 24:11 -And he made his camels to kneel down without the city by a well of water at the time of the evening, even the time that women go out to draw water.

It is no less ludicrous to say that they camels knelt for millions of years than to claim an evening earlier in the chapter was.

OK, I see there is no point reasoning with someone whose ideas are set in concrete...

Have a nice day....

 

[dad]

OK, I see there is no point reasoning with someone whose ideas are set in concrete...

Have a nice day....

No point in trying to say camels knelt for millions of years, no.

 

[Deeje]

No point in trying to say camels knelt for millions of years, no.

No one did...you are beating up strawmen. Do some research.....

 

[dad]

No one did...you are beating up strawmen. Do some research.....

No one did...you are beating up strawmen. Do some research.....

Both Gen chap 1 and 24 use Hebrew word `ereb for evening.

 

[Bear Wild]

Knowing such doubts would come one day, as mentioned, God cleared that up with each and every day bu adding that this day consisted of a morning and evening.We see He walked in the garden in the cool of the day. Not sure if you thin He was strolling there for millions of years?! But in case someone is also confused with what years are, He gave us the years Adam lived.
Of course, and that has no connection to so called origin sciences that are religious nonsense.



The years and days are given and the mornings and evenings cannot be stretched mindlessly to infinity to suit some folks who have trouble believing what is actually said.
Later in Genesis we see ample clarification for morning or evening..example

Ge 24:11 -And he made his camels to kneel down without the city by a well of water at the time of the evening, even the time that women go out to draw water.

It is no less ludicrous to say that they camels knelt for millions of years than to claim an evening earlier in the chapter was.

Just when I thought it could not get weirder you come out with this. Amazing.

 

[dad]

Just when I thought it could not get weirder you come out with this. Amazing.

Having a day defined by morning and evening and a morning and evening clearly shown to be exactly what it sounds like, there is no possibility to insert millions of years in there as far as the bible goes. That may seem weird to you, but that is your problem.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Having a day defined by morning and evening and a morning and evening clearly shown to be exactly what it sounds like, there is no possibility to insert millions of years in there as far as the bible goes. That may seem weird to you, but that is your problem.

Wait a second. You just said that the Bible is wrong. How is that our problem?

 

[nPeace]

Hi, again.

So, the idea that there's a common ancestor for all life. To my knowledge it isn't a foregone conclusion that every species alive descended from the same ancestor. It's possible that it isn't the case. What would you say you found to be circular in particular?

So although there are a number of examples, I'll give just a few.

The first idea started with - all life must have come from one common ancestor. The claim was made that comparing anatomy, and traits show that.
That's like having an idea, and then having another idea to support the first idea. Similarities of anatomy and traits does not automatically lead to one conclusion.

The idea that the process would have taken millions of years - a slow gradual process, was proposed. What was it based on? An assumption that the first idea is true.
The process of dating fossils and rock were both circular, and based on assumptions.

The fossil record did not support the claim that the first idea would require a slow gradual process. So punctuated equilibrium was proposed to fill gaping holes that the observed evidence was revealing.
What was not observed, was assumed to be the case, again, because the first idea is assumed to be true.
So it was claimed that change happens very quickly, not by a slow gradual process... alone.
Punctuated equilibrium would also explain the missing intermediate fossils, not found as proposed, in the fossil record.
Punctuated equilibrium would also fill the gap where new "species" seen in the fossil record appear suddenly, and then disappear, without any apparent morphological changes.

Here, circular reasoning is also used. Support for punctuated equilibrium is seen in fossil records they claim, but really, it is the case that punctuated equilibrium was hypothesized - an idea was created - in order to fill the large gaps in the fossil record. In other words, another idea was created in order to explains the observed evidence.

It's like finding evidence in a room. Not knowing the circumstances, but creating a story, and building all the evidence to fit that story.

Punctuated equilibrium is actually criticized for a number of reasons, and many still argue for gradualism, while searching for other explanations to fill the holes. It seems there is no end to this ongoing debate.

Edit
@Jaiket
Then there is punctuated gradualism...
Punctuated gradualism - Wikipedia
Studies use evidence to predict how organisms evolved in the past and apply this evidence to the present.
The study directly challenges phyletic gradualism and punctuated equilibrium. It shows how many factors can come into play when comparing the two modes of evolution.

All the evidence apparently points somewhere other than to the idea that all life came from one LUCA, but that evidence is interpreted to explain the idea.

What do you make of the opposite hypothesis? That there are multiple ancestors for the life at present. What do you think would be evidence of that?

This fits well with all the evidence imo.
From the design of DNA, to the sudden appearance of all major body plans in the fossil record, to living fossils... etc. etc. Everything seems to fit.

DNA and its code nature are amazing to me. Ok then. Let's say for the sake of discussion that DNA was designed, and it was God who designed it. Do you know anything about how it functions?

How DNA functions, is written all over the place. Here is a link to a fascinating look at DNA's function.
Of course, if you are looking for more, you can find animations, or if you like reading, just google DNA function.

 

[dad]

Wait a second. You just said that the Bible is wrong. How is that our problem?

Not believing God's word is not my problem.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Knowing such doubts would come one day, as mentioned, God cleared that up with each and every day bu adding that this day consisted of a morning and evening.We see He walked in the garden in the cool of the day. Not sure if you thin He was strolling there for millions of years?! But in case someone is also confused with what years are, He gave us the years Adam lived.
Of course, and that has no connection to so called origin sciences that are religious nonsense.



The years and days are given and the mornings and evenings cannot be stretched mindlessly to infinity to suit some folks who have trouble believing what is actually said.
Later in Genesis we see ample clarification for morning or evening..example

Ge 24:11 -And he made his camels to kneel down without the city by a well of water at the time of the evening, even the time that women go out to draw water.

It is no less ludicrous to say that they camels knelt for millions of years than to claim an evening earlier in the chapter was.

Mornings do not end, nor begin, a literal Hebrew day. Does it?

(But such language does signify a new era.)

 

[dad]

Mornings do not end, nor begin, a literal Hebrew day. Does it?

(But such language does signify a new era.)

A morning has to end to allow evening to begin. A day consists of both. One clue for you might be when the bible mentions something like 'when it was evening'

example:

1Ki 18:29 - And it came to pass, when midday was past, and they prophesied until the time of the offering of the evening sacrifice, that there was neither voice, nor any to answer, nor any that regarded.