R
rossum
Guest
You are of course correct. I intended my questions for those who take Genesis literally, my apologies for not making myself clearer.
rossum
- Status
rossum
B
Benadam
Guest
I guess a literal translation has a different meaning than “literally true”
B
Benadam
Guest
Apology accepted. Maybe it was my misunderstanding of what you meant.
I guess a literal translation has a different meaning than “literally true”
Peace
J
Jim_B
Guest
Glad to see that my original posting resulted in a few responses. Unfortunately, two of the responses stereotyped me as being a “creationist”.
There are two different vocabulary words here /creation and creationism/.
“Creation” answers the question, “Why isn’t there nothing?” Every Christian affirms their belief in creation when they pray the Apostles Creed each Sunday - “I believe in God the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth.” If a person does not believe that God created and yet recites this prayer, then perhaps they are not praying sincerely.
“Creationism” - as commonly understood, is the belief that the universe was created in 144 hours about 6000 years ago. At no point in my earlier post did I say I subscribed to “Creationism”.
But it is a common generalization of evolutionists to stereotype everyone who doesn’t believe in evolution as a creationist.
The fact that they did, confirms the above statement.
That “creation” happened is self evident. If creation had not happened then nothing would exist. A person who does not believe in creation believes that the universe brought itself into existence out of nothing on its own. Such a belief contradicts reason. There are causes and effects. God is the cause, the universe is an effect.
When did creation happen? How old is the universe? I do not know and I don’t believe anyone can honestly say they definitely know.
My final point here is that valid theories need to be “verified”.
Good science verifies a cause/effect relationship to show it can be true. It is testable, observable, and repeatable. ‘Plants give off oxygen’ is one such observation which was a theory in the 17th century (Joseph Priestly) and is now known to be a fact.
For evolution to be verified, then organic evolution (molecules assembling themselves into a living cell) needs to be verified.
The Miller Apparatus of the 1950s failed to do this, since the amino acids synthesized were immediately removed from the ‘electric’ atmosphere and kept in the catch flask. The ‘spark’ which fomed the amino acids from simple molecules, would have been the same spark which would have broken the peptide bonds of the polypeptides. His apparatus did not simulate nature. And since the primitive atmosphere is not longer present to ‘experiment with’ - then we can never truly “duplicate” initial conditions to ‘prove’ that evolution happened. It will remain an open question. By the way, the spark chamber did not generate one protein, only a soup of random amino acids.
On Oct. 22, 1996, Pope John Paul II (who has an open mind with regards to evolution and considers it a possibility) stated this to the Potifical Academy of Science:
“A theory proves its validity by the measure to which it can be verified.”
An unverifiable theory will remain, just a theory.
That is not creationism, that is reality.
There are two different vocabulary words here /creation and creationism/.
“Creation” answers the question, “Why isn’t there nothing?” Every Christian affirms their belief in creation when they pray the Apostles Creed each Sunday - “I believe in God the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth.” If a person does not believe that God created and yet recites this prayer, then perhaps they are not praying sincerely.
“Creationism” - as commonly understood, is the belief that the universe was created in 144 hours about 6000 years ago. At no point in my earlier post did I say I subscribed to “Creationism”.
But it is a common generalization of evolutionists to stereotype everyone who doesn’t believe in evolution as a creationist.
The fact that they did, confirms the above statement.
That “creation” happened is self evident. If creation had not happened then nothing would exist. A person who does not believe in creation believes that the universe brought itself into existence out of nothing on its own. Such a belief contradicts reason. There are causes and effects. God is the cause, the universe is an effect.
When did creation happen? How old is the universe? I do not know and I don’t believe anyone can honestly say they definitely know.
My final point here is that valid theories need to be “verified”.
Good science verifies a cause/effect relationship to show it can be true. It is testable, observable, and repeatable. ‘Plants give off oxygen’ is one such observation which was a theory in the 17th century (Joseph Priestly) and is now known to be a fact.
For evolution to be verified, then organic evolution (molecules assembling themselves into a living cell) needs to be verified.
The Miller Apparatus of the 1950s failed to do this, since the amino acids synthesized were immediately removed from the ‘electric’ atmosphere and kept in the catch flask. The ‘spark’ which fomed the amino acids from simple molecules, would have been the same spark which would have broken the peptide bonds of the polypeptides. His apparatus did not simulate nature. And since the primitive atmosphere is not longer present to ‘experiment with’ - then we can never truly “duplicate” initial conditions to ‘prove’ that evolution happened. It will remain an open question. By the way, the spark chamber did not generate one protein, only a soup of random amino acids.
On Oct. 22, 1996, Pope John Paul II (who has an open mind with regards to evolution and considers it a possibility) stated this to the Potifical Academy of Science:
“A theory proves its validity by the measure to which it can be verified.”
An unverifiable theory will remain, just a theory.
That is not creationism, that is reality.
- Status