Old-Earth Creationism: A Heretical Belief?

Reasons to Believe ^

[mnehring]

Maybe a better question is, why did God open Eden’s gate to Satan?

[RegulatorCountry]

It's a matter of perception.

So, you perceive that the center of the universe is where ever you are, but ...

500 years ago people were all up in arms at the concept that the earth was not the center of the universe. Yet here we are 500 years later and we all acknowledge this fact

... according to a previous reply by you, so I have to ask: just where were you, when you wrote this statement?

[Tailgunner Joe]

The origin of human sin is that Adam and Eve were deceived by Satan into thinking "ye shall be as gods," and "ye shall not surely die.

God allows us to sin because it would be wrong to deny us free will. If we choose to serve Satan and do evil, that's not God's fault, it's ours.

[Diego1618]

This is, of course.....not scripture.....but makes for interesting reading from the folks of the Old Book.

"Nor is this world inhabited by man the first of things earthly created by God. He made several worlds before ours, but He destroyed them all, because He was pleased with none until He created ours."

http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/loj/loj103.htm

First sentence of the fourth paragraph of chapter one. "The Creation of The World" of "The Legends of The Jews".

[Non-Sequitur]

bump

[Diego1618]

Sorry....I did not post link correctly...here it is:

Legends Of The Jews

[raynearhood]

DNA a non-Darwin concept demonstrates there is race.

No, DNA does not demonstrate race. Race is a social construct. DNA determines the color of skin, the color of eyes, height (or lack there of) etc...

Let's use the color of eyes as an example.

DNA has determined (for the sake of this discussion) that there are 16 people in the room with me that have blue eyes, 11 people with brown eyes, and four people with green eyes.

I have brown eyes, and in my infinite wisdom I've determined that people with brown eyes have the best outlook on life (bad pun intented). As a result of my determination, I've decided that the 16 blue-eyes and four green-eyes are not as smart as us 11 brown eyes.

Anyhow, six years after this determination, I've had an epiphany: Brown-eyes, blue-eyes, and green-eyes are all the same and no one's intelligence can be judged by the color of their eyes. We all can, now, get along.

Ridiculous, right? But I have just created the concept of race based on eye color instead of skin color.

Now, just to expand on the point that the concept of race is in fact Darwinian. Race seperation based on skin color (back in the olden days race referred to a national/familial identity, not skin color) began as a simple, stupid social construct in order to promote one group's perception of themselves over another. That social outlook evolved into a "social Darwinian" point of view based on biological determinism. Stephen Jay Gould dedicated his book The Mismeasure of Man to the subject. It's in the book... Don't take my word for it (♪butterfly in the sky♪)

[Just mythoughts]

No, DNA does not demonstrate race. Race is a social construct. DNA determines the color of skin, the color of eyes, height (or lack there of) etc... Let's use the color of eyes as an example. DNA has determined (for the sake of this discussion) that there are 16 people in the room with me that have blue eyes, 11 people with brown eyes, and four people with green eyes. I have brown eyes, and in my infinite wisdom I've determined that people with brown eyes have the best outlook on life (bad pun intented). As a result of my determination, I've decided that the 16 blue-eyes and four green-eyes are not as smart as us 11 brown eyes. Anyhow, six years after this determination, I've had an epiphany: Brown-eyes, blue-eyes, and green-eyes are all the same and no one's intelligence can be judged by the color of their eyes. We all can, now, get along. Ridiculous, right? But I have just created the concept of race based on eye color instead of skin color. Now, just to expand on the point that the concept of race is in fact Darwinian. Race seperation based on skin color (back in the olden days race referred to a national/familial identity, not skin color) began as a simple, stupid social construct in order to promote one group's perception of themselves over another. That social outlook evolved into a "social Darwinian" point of view based on biological determinism. Stephen Jay Gould dedicated his book The Mismeasure of Man to the subject. It's in the book... Don't take my word for it (♪butterfly in the sky♪)

In the OJ trial, was it not DNA that determined the 'race' of the attacker? Doesn't the bone structure of the skeletal remains get used to identify the race of the individual. I remember many years back, Oprah claiming that 'brown' eye people were the most likely people to be discriminated against...she had some old woman on her show who had written a book regarding the subject.

One of my liberal relatives bought it hook line and sinker and thought they could explain to me about institutional racism... Funny thing was to me at the time of this lecture was the supposed 'evil' of blue eyed racists, having the superiority of only ones that could be racists, was that I have a brown eyed a blue eyed and a green eyed children. All from the same two parents. I can't speak for anyone else but in no way did I favor any of my children because of eye color, and what I see in their eyes is the beauty of their individuality.

IF a skeletal remains are found and NO other way to identify the remains it is DNA of that individual that tells the information regarding who they are and who they come from. That would include their 'race' as God made His children the way He wanted them and He said it was GOOD. It has been man and his means and methods that make 'race' an issue.

It is ridiculous to claim that all the different peoples we have on this earth to day came from only two people, Adam and Eve. Most especially when the Bible has two different days of man/woman in the flesh being created/formed.

[raynearhood]

In the OJ trial, was it not DNA that determined the 'race' of the attacker? Doesn't the bone structure of the skeletal remains get used to identify the race of the individual.

I don't disagree, but this is still reflecting the social construct of race as a category. The social construct is convenient because of our long history of incorrect categorization of people by skin color, bone structure, etc...

Oprah claiming that 'brown' eye people were the most likely people to be discriminated against...One of my liberal relatives bought it hook line and sinker and thought they could explain to me about institutional racism

Irrational categorization. It's the same twisted logic that flows from the concept of race determination through biological determinism.

This isn't some feel good, "We're all the same!" crap that Ham, Lee N., or I are talking about. Race is a social category, not a genetic category. Injecting race into genetics is not scientific, but an example of the social situation influencing science. The Mismeasure of Man really is a good book, and Gould does a much better job of putting genetics, determinism, the history of race, and the misclassification of the human species into layman's terms than I ever could.

And, to top it all off, it isn't Biblical.

Most especially when the Bible has two different days of man/woman in the flesh being created/formed.

On a completely seperate subject, the Documetary Hypothesis is bunk. I'd be happy to discuss that with you if that's where you want to go with this conversation.

[Just mythoughts]

The Mismeasure of Man really is a good book, and Gould does a much better job of putting genetics, determinism, the history of race, and the misclassification of the human species into layman's terms than I ever could.

Before there was Gould was the Heavenly Father, He is the WORD and He had Moses pen the Genesis of what HE did. That is my foundation and when anybody preaches another 'gospel' according to Paul they are teaching against the WORD.

[raynearhood]

Before there was Gould was the Heavenly Father, He is the WORD and He had Moses pen the Genesis of what HE did. That is my foundation and when anybody preaches another 'gospel' according to Paul they are teaching against the WORD.

OK, now I am officially confused.

I don't buy into Gould's basic premise of evolutionary speciation (either through 'punctuated equilibrium' or by classic gradualism). Honestly, I don't buy into the Theory of Evolution to explain speciation, orgins, or any of the such. Like you, the foundation for my beliefs about origins in found in the the truth of Scripture. I do, however, appreciate Gould's candor in admitting to the social failings of evolutionary thought in its application to race in western civilization. He explains that, from an evolutionary science standpoint, race is bunk.

From a Biblical standpoint, race (as we catagorize it) is bunk.

From a purely scientific standpoint, race is bunk. As I said, race is a social construct. What does that have to do with a "'gospel' according to Paul."

You have left me confused.

[allmendream]

In the OJ trial DNA was not used to determine the “race” of the attacker, it was used to IDENTIFY the attacker. It was either OJ Simpson or his previously unknown identical twin with the exact same DNA.

DNA can be used for “racial” classification, but only as a % chance. In other words, you count up the markers most associated with different human populations and you can get an estimate that the person whose DNA you found is, lets say, 80% likely to be of Asian descent.

[Just mythoughts]

DNA can be used for “racial” classification, but only as a % chance. In other words, you count up the markers most associated with different human populations and you can get an estimate that the person whose DNA you found is, lets say, 80% likely to be of Asian descent.

And by definition of the many races found to exist right on this very day upon this earth means simply they could not have all come from only two flesh beings? Correct?

[allmendream]

The genetic diversity of the human race and our suitability of each population for the selective pressures of their native environment speak to the ability of humans to evolve new genetic variations.

A Creationist poster suggested there was no evolution, just “devolution”, or loss of genetic variation or genetic information. That is ridiculous as the maximum genetic variability of “only two flesh beings” is FOUR at any genetic loci. Obviously human genetic variation came from somewhere, and that variation is not degenerative, but adaptive.

[Jandy on Genesis]

Humans were mining red ochre in tunnel mines in the Lebombo Mountains 80,000 years ago. That indicates that the earth is older that Young-Earth Creationists want us to believe.
Read about it here: http://jandyongenesis.blogspot.com/2007/10/mining-blood.html

[Lee N. Field]

This isn't some feel good, "We're all the same!" crap that Ham, Lee N., or I are talking about. Race is a social category, not a genetic category. Injecting race into genetics is not scientific, but an example of the social situation influencing science. The Mismeasure of Man really is a good book, and Gould does a much better job of putting genetics, determinism, the history of race, and the misclassification of the human species into layman's terms than I ever could.

One of my majors in college was anthropology, which involved physical anthropology courses. My recollection (been quite a while, and anthropology is not something you use everyday, you understand) is that other inheritable traits vary quite independently from what most people think of as "race" which is based on appearance.