Replies

Here's my take. Those who believe man was created by God and that the earth isn't all that old are usually identified as "Creationists." Those who believe God created man but aren't all that concerned about the age of the earth usually fall into the camp known as "Intelligent Design."

"I believe that (a) God created mankind pretty much as he is now, relatively recently, and there has been no macro-evolution."

There is probably a wide range of belief on this for both groups. Adam being pretty much as we are now, physically, is probably believed by most, but the physical world was without death before the first sin against God was commited by man, and nearly all seem to believe that God's judgement had physical consequences on the world - after all, the Garden of Eden is envisioned as something different from the world as we know it now.

There's also a range on the issue of evolution of living things other than man. "Creationists" (or, "young earth creationists") tend to believe there has been evolution within "kinds" (as the Bible calls it, not to be confused with "species"), while "IDers" may well believe it all (even man, in some cases) evolved from a single organism.

Also, there are others who believe man was created by God but that the earth is old, but that there have been points of 'special creation' by God along the way, lining up the age of the earth closer to that estimated by Darwinists but the age of man closer to that of "Creationists."

Of course, all three groups can be identified with the word "Creationist" since the word implies only that the world (or, all things, really) were an intended creation.

"Adam being pretty much as we are now, physically, is probably believed by most, but the physical world was without death before the first sin against God was commited by man, and nearly all seem to believe that God's judgement had physical consequences on the world - after all, the Garden of Eden is envisioned as something different from the world as we know it now."

Actually, I never met anyone who believed that Adam really existed. It seems an unlikely hypothesis considering the DNA evidence. And creating Eve from a rib seems preposterous--and unnecessary for a creator. I mean, if he can create polar bears by {poof}, why not a woman {poof}?

It would seem that He needed a design template. And did female polar bears get created from the rib of a male polar bear? Or, why go to the trouble of designing male reproductive organs if the female was an after-thought?

OK, I cut Him some slack--this was before project management software. I am not so sure about sin--is this the same as falling behind on the schedule?

Take close a look at the structure of the first chapter of Genesis and you'll note some interesting things. The first couple of verses talk of God "Creating the heavens and the Earth...then speaking of the earth as having no form or void or of being empty and lifeless "and the spirit of God hovered OVER THE WATERS". Now how long form the initial creation of Heavens and Earth to the time of God's direct Terra forming of the planet and atmosphere the Bible doesn't say...perhaps billions of years(allowing time for much of the foundational geological development with in the crust, solar sytem dust froming the planets ect) so it seems to me the timing arguements start with God commanding.."Let there be light...!" It seems then that according to the Bible, that God secondly had to contend with a lot of water covering the earth with the distillation of an atmoshere from it.

Here is where the 7 days verses 7 creative periods arguements starts, here is where the secular minded scientists start to choke.

Creationism to me is defined as simply the belief that God created the heavens and Earth and all life and has monitored and often directly intervened when he deemed appropriate with his creation.

The timing questions are what the secular scientists have been using to beat the Creation minded over the head. they The assumption is that with the best dating methods and algorithms they have, that time has always been constant and that the various radiation dating methods used remain accurate beyond a few million years or so.
Yet algorthms need to applied in mixed sediment beds where very old things seemed to be surrounded by much younger things, and MATHEMATICAL assumptions(or best "scientific guesses") as to how best "age" the rocks and fossils they are examining. There again this assumes time remains a constant and assumes that there has been no Deus Ex Machina force working at the beginning of Earth's time.

The current accepted scientific method can not make such an assumption since such a force can not be examined or posited by any data known to exist(the dreaded tautologous). Where the seculars often go wrong is when they take up the bias that any tautologous notions of the Universe's creation(such as Deaus Ex Machina) must be seen as false and non existent. The tautologous must be seen in a neutral light neither accepted nor rejected for true science to remain true science)

Translation for those in Rio Linda: The Secular scientists need to retain the open(not necessarily skeptical either) mind that they would often accuse a Creationist for not having!