Any young earth creationists out there?

[Aloysium]

Logic would seem to dictate that if God exists without a cause, then everything must exist without a cause.

I haven’t observed anything that is not transient. Everything appears as the current manifestation of something that was. There is a temporal cause to any transient event. There was a beginning, and it appears that everything that came into being did so as part of a process that showed growing complexity. The current presentation of anything in creation, is a transformation of something that was in relation to the present.

Where everything changes, what remains constant is that everything exists in its moment. Everything can be understood as being brought into existence in its now. Each now is an expression of an eternal Now, within each individual being and encompassing all being.

Everything that exists does so in relation to everything that it is not. Being is relational in nature. The Ground of being is Perfect Relationality - Love, the Triune Godhead from which everything springs and where everything is One.

 

[Aloysium]

A conscious mind, no matter where or when it exists, is constrained by the egocentric predicament. It can never know if anything outside of itself actually exists. Death can’t change that.

We are relational beings, we perceive, think and feel about, and act upon that which is other to ouselves. We can treat our bodies and mind as other, and contemplate their structure and behaviour. Existing does not happen in isolation but as a participation, a personal relationship. It isn’t egocentric because we can give ourselves over to what is other to our selves. In simply being oneself, our true selves that is, which means to be Christ-like, we can realize or have revealed to us who and what we are beyond ideas, being the knowing itself. It’s then that we find that we are known and loved, finding eternal joy in returning who we are to He who brings us into being.

 

[Gorgias]

I already accept that there exist plenty of practical uses for “the theory of evolution”. But that’s not what I asked for - I asked for an example of how the information that all life on earth evolved from a microbe is useful to science.

That’s like saying that the foundation of a building is useless because it doesn’t visibly provide benefit to the building. It’s purpose is to be the grounds upon which the building stands – and if the building provides benefit, then the cornerstone does so, as well.

What you’re gnashing your teeth about is itself the cornerstone of a theory which you yourself grant that “there are plenty of practical uses for”. Therefore, it does have practical use and benefit: it is the very grounds upon which these other uses depend. QED.

But even if the earth was lifeless for a very long time … so what?

It shows that you’re willing to go beyond the letter of Scripture. So, it’s hypocritical to reject others’ ideas simply because they do the same thing.

the earth must have been created before v.3, ie, before the “six days” … which is just what we read - the creation of the earth is described in verse 1.

So… God didn’t create the universe ex nihilo? Hmm… the Church disagrees with you on that one, @Glark…

 

[Glark]

It is the obstinate public insistence that you must be right and evolutionists must be wrong that delights demons.

I don’t recall saying I must be right and evolutionists must be wrong.

The devil rejoices in the rejection of Reason

Please provide an example of Glark’s rejection of Reason.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

I don’t recall saying I must be right and evolutionists must be wrong.

I’m not at all surprised.

Please provide an example of Glark’s rejection of Reason.

Si monumentum requiris circumspice.

 

[Glark]

V

That’s like saying that the foundation of a building is useless because it doesn’t visibly provide benefit to the building. It’s purpose is to be the grounds upon which the building stands – and if the building provides benefit, then the cornerstone does so, as well.

Sorry, but your analogy is nonsense - it demonstrates that not only is your perception of reality upside-down in this instance, but that you have succeeded in conflating a belief with a fact. The FACT of biological evolution (ie, inherited changes within a population) doesn’t depend in any way, shape or form on the BELIEF that life on earth evolved from microbes.
Unfortunately for your cherished illusion of grandeur, when it comes to applied science, only FACTS produce useful results - on the other hand, mere BELIEFS are completely worthless. Let me put it this way: If no scientist believed that life on earth evolved from microbes, it wouldn’t make the slightest difference to any form of applied science. So a “fundamentalist” biologist who rejects microbe-man evolution would be no less competent in the field of applied biology than a biologist who believes in microbe-man evolution.

Can you explain how it is that there exist “fundamentalist” creationists who are professors of biology? These professors completely reject Darwin’s “tree of life” hypothesis and microbe-man evolution - instead they believe in a literal “six days” of creation. Imagine that, these professors would be forced to deny all those uses for microbe-man evolution - if any existed!

It shows that you’re willing to go beyond the letter of Scripture.

This is hilarious, coming from a theistic evolutionist! There is not so much as the slightest little hint of evolution in the entire Bible; in fact, Scripture has to be twisted, distorted and tortured into a bloody, unrecognisable mess - ie, effectively denied - in order to “accomodate” it.
In contrast, my interpretation of Genesis is based on a very literal - and I think, not unreasonable - reading of the text (there are a couple of Scriptures outside Genesis that I also think support my ideas).

Please explain exactly how I have “gone beyond the letter of Scripture”?

So… God didn’t create the universe ex nihilo?

I have no idea how you arrived at this erroneous conclusion. I believe that “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” … from nothing.

Btw, these ideas of mine on Genesis are not necessarily my hard-and-fast belief. They are offered in response to the scientific claims of a very old earth. If the science is correct, then a fresh theology needs to be developed in order to accommodate discovered facts. But the science could be wrong, in which case, my ideas may not be applicable.

 

[Glark]

There you go again…being hypocritical. You insist that God can exist without a cause

Er … no. Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else - I didn’t insist on anything of the sort. God was not created and did not have a beginning, so His existence doesn’t require a cause. On the other hand, anything that was created (eg, angels, the universe, life on earth, Ferraris (although I prefer Porsches) had a beginning and therefore requires a cause.

A conscious mind, no matter where or when it exists, is constrained by the egocentric predicament. It can never know if anything outside of itself actually exists. Death can’t change that.

Tell that to your Creator when you met Him on Judgement Day. Your philosophy will no doubt bamboozle Him and the Heavenly Court will have to be adjourned indefinitely.

 

[Glark]

6000 years? I don’t think so. It’s an interpretation that seems to be a reading into scripture of a meaning which was not intended.

In that case, the Scriptures were very poorly written, because the Hebrews took the OT chronology literally, as do many Jews, as did 99.9999% of Christians who ever lived.

 

[Glark]

I recall Pope Benedict XVI telling us that Jesus Christ is the beginning and the end of all reality.

 

[Glark]

In other words, you shouldn’t make claims that you can’t substitute.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

In other words, you shouldn’t make claims that you can’t substitute.

I can substitute. (I guess you’ve got as manic a predictive text goblin as I have) I meant what I said. Almost your every post proclaims the authority of Glark over everybody else, evolutionists, the Catechism, the Pope, etc, etc., and a denial of the reasonable assertions of your fellow commenters on the thread.

 

[Gorgias]

The FACT of biological evolution (ie, inherited changes within a population) doesn’t depend in any way, shape or form on the BELIEF that life on earth evolved from microbes.
Unfortunately for your cherished illusion of gr

My guess is that you’re attempting to compare micro-evolution to evolution of specie. Perhaps that’s why you’re getting all bent out of shape here.

However, if you’re not, then what you’re suggesting is that there are at least two distinct mechanisms in play – one that happened early, and one that happened later (and continues on to today). That’s a theory… but is it one that you can support? Or, is it just something that you want to believe because you don’t want to assent to evolution?

Can you explain how it is that there exist “fundamentalist” creationists who are professors of biology?

Certainly. There are folks of every stripe in science. Naturally, some believe in certain propositions and others reject those propositions. I can explain it because that’s how science works – you don’t need to sign your “Darwin loyalty oath” at the door in order to get in.

This is hilarious, coming from a theistic evolutionist!

You’re laughing, but you can’t see the irony. I’m not the one advocating for a strict literalistic interpretation. But, since you are, it’s terribly interesting when you start relying on eisegesis of theories outside of the text. Hilarious, indeed!

Please explain exactly how I have “gone beyond the letter of Scripture”?

I’ve done it twice already. I’d encourage to you read before you respond.

I have no idea how you arrived at this erroneous conclusion. I believe that “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” … from nothing.

Well, then… you believe in an extra-biblical doctrine on creation! After all, you’re arguing for an earth that pre-exists the narrative of Genesis 1:1, which leads you to a brick wall: by that standard there’s no Biblical text that describes the creation of the earth!

 

[Aloysium]

what you’re suggesting is that there are at least two distinct mechanisms in play – one that happened early, and one that happened later (and continues on to today).

It is something like that although I would say there is one mechanism that followed the creation of the first member of a kind (perhaps genus in scientific terminology) of organism.

Whatever the time frame a first pair would have been created having a particular psychophysical make up from whom a variety of offspring followed.

In terms of the genome, it would be free of the random changes and viral insertions that occur over time and are hopefully silent but can cause disorders and death. The initial DNA within its cellular environment would include coding for a variety of changes in order to allow future offspring to be better able to participate in their environment.

The soul of the particular organism would include diverse perceptual gestalts that would allow it to function again in the different sorts of environments it might encounter, emotional reactions to them, and behaviours to express those feelings, such as fight-flight responses, the seeking out of food and mating behaviour.

So for example, from one original cat-like creature, there would have developed lions, tigers, panthers, leopards, cougars, lynx, as well as the different types of household cat.

The creation of the first of each kind of living organism involved the template used to create “lesser” or other organisms with changes or additions that made them a different kind of living being. It led to the expression of different original attributes allowing different species to arise from it as they became a part of different environments and expressed the beauty that is God as they sought that ideal in a mate.

What we also find is that with the fall, that followed the original sin committed by the crown of creation, the eternal connection of each creature with the Source of its existence was affected. There followed a corruption of the order which had been established in the world and we find random genetic mutations and nature destroying itself as it is doing in the Galapagos currently with the introduction of foreign organisms.

What is called evolution today is the ongoing expression of silent genetic code in response to changes in the environment as well as speciation through gene deletion.

 

[Glark]

Sorry, that’s a typo - I meant “substantiate”, not “substitute”.

 

[Glark]

My guess is that you’re attempting to compare micro-evolution to evolution of specie. Perhaps that’s why you’re getting all bent out of shape here.

How is a biologist’s competency in applied science diminished by denying that life on earth evolved from microbes? Can you give me an example?

pe in science. Naturally, some believe in certain propositions and others reject those propositions. I can explain it because that’s how science works – you don’t need to sign your “Darwin loyalty oath” at the door in order to get in.

You seemed to have completely missed my point. If there exists a practical use in applied science for the “information” that life on earth evolved from microbes, these “fundamentalist creationist” professors would have to deny such a use exists, thereby denying an demonstrable fact - in which case they would instantly and rightly become the laughing stock of the entire scientific community and no university or college would have anything to do with them. In other words, they wouldn’t be professors. But these professors don’t have to deny any use for microbe-man evolution, because none exist.

You’re laughing, but you can’t see the irony. I’m not the one advocating for a strict literalistic interpretation.

Once again, you seem to have have missed my point - I think my straight-forward, literal interpretation has more merit than the laughable “exegesis” of theistic evolution, which is something akin to waving a magic wand and pulling a rabbit out of a hat.

But, since you are, it’s terribly interesting when you start relying on eisegesis of theories outside of the text.

Days 2-6 begin with the words, “And God said …”. Would it be fair to say that Day 1 also begins with those words, “And God said …”, in verse 3?

 

[Glark]

Almost your every post proclaims the authority of Glark over everybody else, evolutionists, the Catechism, the Pope, etc, etc., and a denial of the reasonable assertions of your fellow commenters on the thread.

I can’t recall a tenet of Glarkism that claims it is the infallible truth.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

I can’t recall a tenet of Glarkism that claims it is the infallible truth.

No, you probably can’t. Not being able to remember things is very much a feature of Creationist argument.

But never mind. We can start from scratch. Is Glarkism fallible or infallible?

 

[Glark]

Is Glarkism fallible or infallible?

Glarkism is fallible.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

It is clearly a scientific impossibility for such a complex and integrated system of machinery can arise by chance

Is this a fallible or an infallible statement?

 

[Gorgias]

Once again, you seem to have have missed my point - I think my straight-forward, literal interpretation has more merit than the laughable “exegesis” of theistic evolution, which is something akin to waving a magic wand and pulling a rabbit out of a hat.

Right. Only you are logical and right-minded, and we’re not only laughable, but we don’t even understand what you’re saying. Got it.

Days 2-6 begin with the words, “And God said …”. Would it be fair to say that Day 1 also begins with those words, “And God said …”, in verse 3?

Immaterial. To make the claims you’re making, you have to insert a creation (of the earth) prior to verse 3… which means you’re reading into the text. That is, you’re attempting to be both literalistic and to deny strict literalism. That’s a bad corner to be painted into, my friend…