Posted on 06/10/2005 9:40:20 PM PDT by orionblamblam
Do you mean sent me a message to where/when earth was being formed from the Inception(where/when God is standing)?
I was asking concerning the observations from God's point of view or from his inception point...what would I have observed from there?
Something of interest...I read of a pecular quality of the obsidian flakes in granite rock. It seems they exhibit a rainbow iridescent pattern to light not found in any otherobsidian(volcanic or artificially man made and cooled in the lab unless exposed to Iridium and flash cooled at the instant of its making). I was trying to to find the linking because I'm sure I'm not explaining the technical details well enough. The point was that the models that predicted a slow cooling of granite over millions of years couldn't account for this iridescent light pattern found in the obsidian flakes in side of granite...it was almost as if the earth was flash made "old" and the shiniy iridescense of granite's obsidian was really a curious photo graph of such an instataneous "creation"...
But hey...I can buy the space time inception idea you speak of...After all the unverse starts with a bang...and time and space are probably warping and not totally constant for the first week or so....it might have taken 6 or 7 (at God's space time inception point) days to calm everything down...by then billions of what we call earth years may have passed to the point that human history's clock starts ticking when Adam and Eve decided they could be like the "gods"..
Why is it so hard to understand that God created man in His own image? Is God some lower form of life that would evolve into the mess that man has become? Do we not recognize that man has not evolved from the biblical account, but has devolved? Be an evolutionist and deny the veracity of God's telling of the story of Creation, or be a creationist and accept it. But there really is no middle ground. Yeshua himself said that at the judgement many will claim to have done much good work in His name, but he will deny ever knowing Him. Deny self, fly in the face of reason (sophia), and sell out to God. That is how you will be acknowledged by Yeshua in the end.
"The fundamentals don't change unless Deus Ex Machina should declare it so... "
Unless of course Monsieur Deus Ex Machina doesn't bother to inform us of the change.
Well heh heh...he certainly has told us that he won't inform us as to the Timing of such changes...but we'll all certainly know when he does change "things"!
"Behold I come as a thief...."
"Christ is risen?...He has risen indeed!"
Creationism, used by itself, is used of any idea which has God creating multiple, distinct creatures from the start.
Young-Earth Creationism is the belief that the account of Genesis 1-11 is historically accurate within the language limits of the Hebrew people. "Young Earth" is a bit of a misnomer, as many YEC's believe in an old age for the physical rock we live on. YEC is characterized by the belief that there was no animal death before Adam, and therefore the geologic column is the result of the flood, not millions or billions of years. YEC's believe in very rapid diversification for animals under stress, but by different means than evolutionists (YEC's believe that the mechanism evolutionists propose is at play, but that it is a lesser mechanism for diversification). YEC's believe that diversity among the species is created by heterozygous fractionation, genomic modularity, and to a lesser degree, evolution. However, they believe with the ID'ers that all information arose from God.
Progressive Creationism isn't really creationism (it's a modification of theistic evolution), except that they believe that God did something special around 6,000 years ago when He put a soul into existing soul-less hominids.
Theistic evolution shared with evolution the belief in Universal Common Ancestry, but disagrees with evolution in the mechanism used to create the diversity of life. They believe that the process of evolution was directed by God and was not random or purposeless.
Some links of interest:
Differences and similarities between creationists and evolutionists:
http://crevo.blogspot.com/2005/05/differences-and-similarities-between.html
Two metaphors for the role of evolution in natural history as seen by creationists:
http://crevobits.blogspot.com/2005/06/nike-metaphor-and-other-thoughts.html
http://crevobits.blogspot.com/2005/05/fireworks-metaphor.html
A book review of a creationist biosystematics book, with summary:
http://crevobits.blogspot.com/2005/05/understanding-pattern-of-life-book.html
Agreed. But that is not true of Protestantism, as a whole.............though for sure, some individuals do that.
I think this debate between Catholicism and Protestantism is off topic, but if there is ever a thread where it applies, I would enjoy discussing it with you.
I do see where you're coming from in terms of doctrine and authority, but where I have problems is your equating 'making up your own truth' with the absence of a church body interpreting Scripture on my behalf.
But to tell the truth, as Protestant churches getter farther and farther afield in throwing out all theology for the sake of popularity and ease, I am drawn more closely to the strength of Catholicism to buck the trends of pop culture and adhere to the truth of Scripture.
God is the only possible candidate for the uncaused cause of a beginning. All cosmologies require a beginning because, at the root, they invoke geometry.
With this understanding, looking at Genesis 1-3, it becomes rather apparant to me that God alone is the observer and that He is relating "Day" from the Creation perspective to "day" from a creature perspective, i.e. on earth.
Therefore, the anchor for "time" must be the inception space/time coordinates - when real time began in this universe.
XenuDidit place mark
"That was the assertion in the original "tiny mystery" testimony which has since been challenged: Institute for Creation Research"
Challenging assertions scientifically does not mean refutation, just means you have a falsifiable arguement in need of more definitive data. And thanks.. it was polonium I was thinking of not Iridium.
"With this understanding, looking at Genesis 1-3, it becomes rather apparant to me that God alone is the observer and that He is relating "Day" from the Creation perspective to "day" from a creature perspective, i.e. on earth."
It explains why the moon and sun seem to have been made on the 4th day with the stars just beginning to appear as well...even though you have the beginnings of plant life on the third day. The photons from other suns would just be reaching our solars system at about that time taking into account the time dilation effects that you describe...millions of years passing by in a flash...depending ones perspective.
Moses of course though he could not see God's face("no man could and live"), who being hidden and protected in the cleft of the rock(a wonderful hymn by the way), had the perspective of seeing God's "hinder parts", in a sense was able to see "where God had been"...Moses wrote his 5 books including Genesis based on his conversations with God and of the revelatory nature of being in God's "TIMELESS" presence...so he was able to "see" in a sense what God saw as God ordered creation into being! This "seeing" of course was only in the limited human sense. Moses was only a man after all so he could only write what he saw ...God's spirit would have to translate what Moses saw into the spiritual knowledge that resides in every believer's heart!
Mine is somewhat different in that I read Genesis 1 through 3 as applying to both heaven and earth and thus describing acts of creation in both. For instance, Gen 2:5 - that plants were created (in heaven) before they were put in the earth.
Here's a link if you are interested in more of my view on Origins and Scriptures
>> So I agree with your friend, God did create, through his other creation, science.
So, to you, if you see someone define themselves simply as a "Creationist," then you do not automatically assume that they deny evolution?
>>>>
Nope, I dont. I know many christians are scientists. I believe that God works through the "laws" of science. NOw there are some miracles that cannot be splained away of course. Like Ted Kennedy being reelected. But I think in most cases God does work that way.
Actually I believe this difference is at the root of the question, "What is a creationist?". To me a creationist is someone who rejects the teaching authority (magisterium) of the sciences.
I'm fine with that.
(It WAS a trick question. Why didn't you admit that in the first place? You would have saved us both a lot of time).
One can't be a heretic against that which you don't profess, so no you aren't a heretic. However you seem to reject the collective authority of scientists who are authorities by virtue of their demonstrated expertise.
The inerrancy of scripture isn't at issue just as objective truth isn't at issue. The issue is by what method is truth revealed and who decides that it has been revealed. I say that the collective judgment of appropriate magisteriums is the better method to decide what is true or probably true.
They aren't looking at the whole picture, but only at a slice of it, and they aren't even objective about that. They aren't looking for truth. They are seeking to back up views they already have.
If you are a Catholic, to get a hold of Touchstone or First Things magazines and get some theological perspective on your scientific, and therefore, severely limited worldview.
Thanks for the discussion.
Ok... I'll play..
Where did the third human to live on earth come from.?.
Where did the first come from.?.
Therefore.. the philosopher considers what attaches to them in their proper nature: the faithful Christian considers about creatures only what attaches to them in their relation to God, as that they are created by God, subject to God, and the like. Hence it is not to be put down as an imperfection in the doctrine of faith, if it passes unnoticed many properties of things, as the configuration of the heavens, or the laws of motion. And again such points as are considered by philosopher and faithful Christian alike, are treated on different principles: for the philosopher takes his stand on the proper and immediate causes of things; but the faithful Christian argues from the First Cause,... Further, the two systems do not observe the same order of procedure. In the system of philosophy, which considers creatures in themselves and from them leads on to the knowledge of God, the first study is of creatures and the last of God; but in the system of faith, which studies creatures only in their relation to God, the study is first of God and afterwards of creatures.."
That the Philosopher and the Theologian view Creatures from Different Standpoints, St. Thomas
In a choice between First Things, Touchstone and St.Thomas, I'll take St. Thomas every time. Thanks for the discussion.
I know you think you've successfully argued that Catholic doctrine defends atheistic scientists above Scripture, but it's pretty laughable.
If you want to believe that the atheists, whose goal was to deny God's part in creation, are telling you the truth, feel free.
But don't defend it with St. Thomas. Your scientists have a philosophical agenda, and you've fallen for it. That's fine. Many have.........obviously.
Thanks for the discussion. But as I said........don't waste my time with your circuitous baiting, OK? I can deal with honest discussion right up front.
Have a nice life. I'll see you in Heaven, where we'll both find out who's right about this.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.