Thread: Creation paper

please read the bold. also this paper is not finished. i just want to get some responses.


Creationism has long struggled with the often misinterpreted theory of evolution. In large part as a result of the ignorance of Christians who are unaware of what evolution is and their inability to research it on their own. I will attempt to explain my views on the whole issue and how I have come to terms with what the sciences have discovered while being an active Christian. Before you read any further one must understand that this paper is aimed toward a very specific audience. If you do not believe in God or think he is omnipotent stop reading now. Well you may if you wish, but understand this paper is aimed to aid in resolving internal conflict for people who do believe in God and do believe him to be omnipotent.

The mechanisms of evolution are undeniable. Natural selection is merely logic and remains irrefutable. Competition, genetic drift, variation and heritability are observed natural occurrences. So if we accept these things as truth, which these things cannot be denied objectively. We cannot deny evolution or at least not evolution as it is defined. This definition as I have come to know it is merely a change in a species over time. It is NOT a theory of creation or origin of life. Evolution may only occur if live already exists. It may not create life only alter it. Yet we still have some who cannot get around this. The problem that we run into is that it does not coincide with the commonly accepted story of creation. to solve this problem we must look at the situation. First it is commonly believe that the bible was written by God. This is false. It was inspired by his will and if we truly believe in his omnipotence created by his will, but not directly written by him. The idea of God sitting down at a golden desk on a cloud somewhere and writing it all down on a parchment is folly. As it turns out this view is held by a great number of believers who misunderstand how God in essence is and functions. That is God though capable of manifesting in the physical does not do things directly, but rather through us whether we are aware of it or not. Also we know that the story of Genesis was not written down at first. Writing did not yet exist at the time. So how did it ever come to be recorded? Well it must have been told verbally. It must have been Passed down over generations until eventually it was written down. This results in a great deal of flexibility in how the story may be shaped. Perhaps in the original story the order was different. Maybe the animals of the land came before the animals of the air. We cannot know for sure. This poses another problem though. People would have most likely distorted the truth to a great degree. If you line up a group of people and tell them to pass down a message you will likely get back something irrevocably different from what you started with. Some may argue that this cannot be, but if we believe in God all powerful nature it had to have been his will to change it in whatever ways he saw fit. We must have sufficient faith to believe that what we have now is what God wanted us to have. The story of creation cannot be interpreted literally as a result of changes that must have occurred. These changes would destroy scientific facts and leave only the general concepts. For example in genesis
24 “…God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.”
The general concept here is that it is Gods created all ground dwelling things. Notice it does not say that he created cheetahs, cows, and zebras. He created “…creatures that move along the ground…” it does not say what they looked like or how he created them. It only says that he did create them. For all we know he could have created basic tetra pods at creation. This type of interpretations is in my opinion far better than that of others who attempt to pick apart the words to the extent that they no longer realize what it is even saying. One such interpretation could be that because God made livestock separate from all other creatures then wild animals cannot become livestock. We must not get stuck trying to get profound wisdom from miniscule bits. Later it says that
28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."
This merely indicates humanities dominance over other species as we see today.

Evolution may only occur if live already exists. It may not create life only alter it. Yet we still have some who cannot get around this.

Evolution only explains the change in life which is already present and is seperate from the theory of Abiogenesis which explains that life came from non-life. Many Christians do not understand that these two theories are completely seperate from each other.

creation. To solve

Grammar - Capitalize the T =)

It was inspired by his will and if we truly believe in his omnipotence created by his will, but not directly written by him.

This doesn't make sense.
It was inspired by his will and ""if we truly believe in his omnipotence created by his will"""
If usually leads off to a "then" statement. For instance, if I were to say, "If we truly believe in his omnipotence created by his will, then we would be lead to believe .. "
As you have it written right now, it makes no sense.
I would suggest this

It was inspired by his will and only if we truly believe in his omnipotence to begin with.
That sentence doesn't require a then statement since I added the part with "only" and "to begin with" at the end. The way you have it written though, I am expecting a "then" statement and it just doesn't come.

we believe in God's all powerful nature

fixed it for you, God owns his powerful nature

Be fruitful and increase in numbers

Actually God said, "Be fruitful and multiply"
The mistranslation comes in when God was actually talking about Math.


Just kidding. =)

Those are just the bits I found. The content however, I cannot comment on because I believe you cannot use the bible to prove anything except the bible existing in it's current form. There is no way to verify the content within.

I voted no despite the fact that I am a Christian and the fact that this is very unclear about what you are supposed to be convinced of, because the fact is that I not only believe that evolution is essentially valid and correct but that so is abiogenesis. I do not believe in the fairy tale necromancer god who only created long ago but in a God who is always creating but not as a machine maker and designer that can create only dead things like watches and robots but as a creator of living things like a shepherd and teacher.

I think your general argument is sound, though I would change the following...

Originally Posted by Chisco1389

The story of creation cannot be interpreted literally as a result of changes that must have occurred.

You're right to say the creation stories cannot be interpreted literally, but your reasoning isn't quite right I don't think.

If you look at Genesis (especially pre-Abraham) and compare it to the rest of the old testament that follows you will notice a distinct writing style.

Both Genesis chapter 1 and 2 which deal the creation are allegorical. It is not that the message became distorted in the early days of the story being told, rather it was written allegorically on purpose.

If you look at Genesis chapter 1 you will notice it is written in a poetic style, the different parts often starting with the same opening line, in the NIV bible I have here this would be "And God said".

In Genesis chapter 2 instead of a poem we see a narrative. But not a historical narrative such as you find in the books of Samuel and Kings. The distinction between the two styles of narrative is quite distinct when you read them.

I believe that this is the reason why the first few chapters of Genesis should not be taken literally.

unfinished or not, the above paper is a non-professional, high school level attempt at proving a pre-conceived idea that is stated in the first line.

no attempt to examine the theory of evolution is made but an unbalanced and derogatory attack is made on God throughout its sentences. coupled with the fact that the author cannot space properly so his words could be read clearly shows that he has no interest in clarity or if his readers obtain his message correctly.

it also shows an ignorance of the Bible, God and creation. the fact that the author does not research but relies solely onhis own opinion means thatthework is not meant as an objective or acadmic work but just another blatant attack that is done by millions all over the world.

my advice is--a. don't finish it; or b. do some research honestly then re-write.

Archaeologist wrote:

but relies solely onhis own opinion

b. do some research honestly then re-write.

*cough* Hey Pot... What color is that kettle?

Don't listen to Archaeologist. He is the most biast source we have here and nothing can influence him or change his mind.

Thanks to all who have posted helpful comments. They are much appreciated and I intend on using them. It always helps to have a second pair of eyes to see what i may have missed. archeologist did you read the intro?

I will attempt to explain my views on the whole issue and how I have come to terms with what the sciences have discovered while being an active Christian.

I never made the claim that i am absolutely right. but this is how i have come to terms to accept discrepencies between science and christianity. If i thought it was perfect i wouldnt be asking for advice.

archeologist did you read the intro?

of course i did and the bold words as well but my point was you came in with a preconceived idea and declared a conclusion long before you presented anything credible to show how you came to this conclusion;

The mechanisms of evolution are undeniable. Natural selection is merely logic and remains irrefutable. Competition, genetic drift, variation and heritability are observed natural occurrences. So if we accept these things as truth, which these things cannot be denied objectively. We cannot deny evolution or at least not evolution as it is defined

why take the paper seriously if you are already finishing the paper before you even start?

how I have come to terms with what the sciences have discovered while being an active Christian

i also read this which means you have taken your eyes and ears off God and put them on secualr science. your whole piece doesn't even compare one scripture with what you concluded nor contrasted the two viewpoints. it isn't just genesis that talks about creation and you have ignored passage upon passage just to be included in a 'sinful club'.

The idea of God sitting down at a golden desk on a cloud somewhere and writing it all down on a parchment is folly.

it is obvious that you were not a great christian if this is how you view God writing the Bible.

to solve this problem we must look at the situation. First it is commonly believe that the bible was written by God. This is false. It was inspired by his will and if we truly believe in his omnipotence created by his will, but not directly written by him

this is complete heresy and ignores direct scriptures which talk about the writing of the Bible 2 Tim. 3:16, 2 Pet. 1: 21

People would have most likely distorted the truth to a great degree. If you line up a group of people and tell them to pass down a message you will likely get back something irrevocably different from what you started with. Some may argue that this cannot be, but if we believe in God all powerful nature it had to have been his will to change it in whatever ways he saw fit.

thenyou use a fallible game to contradict God? then you think God changed His word as time went on? you do not understand God nor who He is.

I am sure you do not want me to go through your 'paper' line by line and destroy what you have written.

Originally Posted by archaeologist

it is obvious that you were not a great christian if this is how you view God writing the Bible.
...
...
...
this is complete heresy and ignores direct scriptures which talk about the writing of the Bible 2 Tim. 3:16, 2 Pet. 1: 21

This is an offensive personal attack based upon unsubstantiated opinion. Such vitriolic attempts at character assassination should not be welcome on this forum, nor should they be part of Christian practice.

archeologist you have got a cheek!

First point.

of course i did and the bold words as well but my point was you came in with a preconceived idea and declared a conclusion long before you presented anything credible to show how you came to this conclusion;

Emmm scientific paper? At the beginning in the Abstract you make a bold statement about what you have discovered, then in what follows you show how you came to such conclusions and what they mean.

But even just thinknig about books, their is always an introduction where the author states what he sets out to show in the book.

So I would argue that his style of writing is fine.

Second point.

this is complete heresy and ignores direct scriptures which talk about the writing of the Bible 2 Tim. 3:16, 2 Pet. 1: 21

Go back and look at that reference in 2 Timothy! It says that scripture is "God breathed". Not "God written". Chisco1389 is saying nothing that conrtdicts this passage.

As for the reference in 2 Peter, if we read from line 20: "20 Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophets own interpretation. 21 For prophecy never had its origin in the will of men, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the holy spirit."

Carried along by the holy spirit... so when Chisco1389 says:

it is commonly believed that the bible was written by God. This is false. It was inspired by his will and if we truly believe in his omnipotence created by his will, but not directly written by him

He is not being a heretic.

i also read this which means you have taken your eyes and ears off God and put them on secualr science. your whole piece doesn't even compare one scripture with what you concluded nor contrasted the two viewpoints. it isn't just genesis that talks about creation and you have ignored passage upon passage just to be included in a 'sinful club'.

This is why I told you to not listen to Archaeologist. If a scientific researcher discovers something that goes against the bible and he does the experiment 50 times, 50 different ways and still comes to the same conclusion, then his experiment must have been wrong because the bible is infallible. This line of thinking is ignorance at best. Archaeologist takes pride in his ignorance.

Originally Posted by archaeologist

to solve this problem we must look at the situation. First it is commonly believe that the bible was written by God. This is false. It was inspired by his will and if we truly believe in his omnipotence created by his will, but not directly written by him

this is complete heresy and ignores direct scriptures which talk about the writing of the Bible 2 Tim. 3:16, 2 Pet. 1: 21

I do not agree with Chisco1389's understanding of the Bible, but I am utterly flabbergasted with the way that Archaeologist rewrites the Bible again to suit himself. He changes 2 Tim 3:16 from "All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work" to "you are a heretic if you say that the Bible was inspired by his will rather than written by God." It is amazing how little archeologist leaves of the original words.

Does he leave anything of 2 Pet 1:20-21? "First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation because no prophecy every came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit of spoke from God". No, he has left nothing of God's word undefiled by his abuse for 2 Peter 1:20-21 is not about how God wrote scripture or about how the talk of scripture being inspired by God in 2 Tim 3:16 was actually heresy. Shall we look at the context to be sure? Well immediate after this it does talk about destructive heresies of false teachers who will cause the way of truth to be reviled because of their licentiousness and they way they greedily exploit people with their words. Now I do not think archeologist brings the same sort of Gnostic heresy that Peter is speaking about in his letter to believe that people can freely sin because they will be forgiven (not that I know of), but he does change the scriptures in order to exploit people in his lust for power.

Now I believe that the Bible is the word of God and written by God Himself using human authors, kings, nations and history itself as His writing instruments and that is why I would never change the words of the Bible to match my belief as Archaeologist changes the Bible to match his. Thus even though I disagree with Chisco1389's view that God only inspired men to write the Bible as I believe God inspires many people to write many different books, I will not defile the word of God as archaeologist has done to make it say what I believe. And here is the big difference between myself and archaeologist. He rewrites the Bible to support his delusional fantasy, that he only believes what is in the Bible, but I acknowledge the simple truth that I believe all sorts of things that are not in the Bible, for I am instructed by a living God through His creation and His living presence in my life. With archaeologist's fairy tale necromancer/machinemaker god who only did things long ago, he has to make the Bible say everything he wants it to say.

So while archaeologist imagines that God endows him with the authority to speak for God, I imagine no such thing. God guides me to save me from myself and not to make me into His hands, mouth and feet as if He were helpless without me. I do not have to imagine that God has made me the vehicle for His truth for I will gladly serve God's will in whatever role He gives me, and that may be as a buffoon, for I do not bargain with God to require that He make me great or anything else but as He wills. In this way I can claim that God is in my life and that He guides me without claiming the tiniest mote of God's authority for myself, for I am admant that people follow and listen not to me but to God.

Originally Posted by archaeologist

People would have most likely distorted the truth to a great degree. If you line up a group of people and tell them to pass down a message you will likely get back something irrevocably different from what you started with. Some may argue that this cannot be, but if we believe in God all powerful nature it had to have been his will to change it in whatever ways he saw fit.

thenyou use a fallible game to contradict God? then you think God changed His word as time went on? you do not understand God nor who He is.

Archaeologist plays this game of pretending that his words are God's words, so that everything you say that he does not agree with, he says contradicts God because it contradicts his opinion. Thus archaeologist shrinks God to this god he hides in his pocket which you cannot see to understand as he understands. But the truth is that we are not interested in the thing that archaeologist has shrunk God into, to keep in his pants to swell his pride and imagine authority for himself.

You know that God lets people believe things that are not true for that is obvious, but you have this delusion that you are somehow different and that He loves your vanity more than any other. Yes God loves you. He loves you more than anyone else. He loves you more than you love yourself. But that is why it is not your vanity that He will serve but your salvation and the salvation of all the rest of His children. So it is that God will lead us to our salvation and not make you or me His spokesman to serve our vanity. You must give up this dogma of the cults that God needs you to speak for Him so that He can accomplish His work and save people.

This is an offensive personal attack based upon unsubstantiated opinion. Such vitriolic attempts at character assassination should not be welcome on this forum, nor should they be part of Christian practice.

no galt, christians are allowed to point out and identify what is heresy or false teachings. if we weren't then no one would know what is true or false. also galt has no idea of the extent of my knowledge and his 'attack' is unsubstantiated because he assumes i am lowering myself to do something i am not doing.

it is clear he does not want the truth on these boards.

Go back and look at that reference in 2 Timothy! It says that scripture is "God breathed". Not "God written".

now sox, you are playing semantics here and i did read his 'paper'. do you think i limited my observation to just the quoted lines? think again. everything he is saying is not taught by scripture and the author of that paper omits or ignores that GOD WROTE the 10 commandments and gave them to Moses.

Plus He told Moses all the laws He was to put down on paper. God wrote them, though He may not have had pen in hand. to say anything differently is heresy because it is saying that man had the right to impersonate God and write their own thoughts and masquerade them as God's words.

That is false and such an idea would legitimize the book of mormon, the j.w. bible and other 'religious writings'.

First it is commonly believe that the bible was written by God. This is false

notice these words and then the following:

It was inspired by his will and if we truly believe in his omnipotence created by his will, but not directly written by him

notice the words 'this is false' and 'inspired by His will' there is NOT one scripture that supports the latter and the declaration in the former is heresy.

no galt, christians are allowed to point out and identify what is heresy or false teachings. if we weren't then no one would know what is true or false. also galt has no idea of the extent of my knowledge and his 'attack' is unsubstantiated because he assumes i am lowering myself to do something i am not doing.

Wasn't that their reasoning for killing or imprisoning anyone who said the Earth was round? And yet, we found out that *gasp* the earth really IS round and not flat!
So you are right. Without pointing out and identifying what is the TRUTH one can never know what is right or wrong. And Archaeologist.. What you are preaching is bullshit.

That is false and such an idea would legitimize the book of mormon, the j.w. bible and other 'religious writings'

Special Pleading - Logical Fallacy. What makes what you say yours is the truth and others are false besides opinion? It is within YOUR opinion where you think that nothing but your idea can be the truth. This is false logic.

notice the words 'this is false' and 'inspired by His will' there is NOT one scripture that supports the latter and the declaration in the former is heresy.

And? Simply because there is not something written down that says, "This was not directly written by God but inspired by the stories of God" does not mean it wasn't.
There is nothing in the bible stating that everything written in the bible was written by God personally either. In fact, the 10 laws of Moses could have very well been Moses crediting God with Moses' idea of how to bring law to his land. Since the thoughts came to Moses, he could have said these are the laws and God gave them to me, even if God didn't have anything to do with it.

Wasn't that their reasoning for killing or imprisoning anyone who said the Earth was round? And yet, we found out that *gasp* the earth really IS round and not flat!

yet the Bible never teaches that the world is flat. take your argument up with the long dead r.c.c. guys.

Special Pleading - Logical Fallacy

logical fallacy. what makes you think your opinion can determine if mine is a logical fallacy and wrong/ it is your opinion that your determination of my point is a logical fallacy and that you know truth over me.

besides i do not use my opinion, i use God and His word. God's word says what is the truth not me.

Pointing out a logical fallacy in someone elses argument in itself is not a logical fallacy.
If you say that every religion but yours is the true religion with no evidence to back it up, then that it saying that every religion must adhere to certain skeptical rules except for my special religion. That is why it is called special pleading.

you have nore excuses. sorry but your game has worn out its welcome and has gotten old very quickly.

What game? You mean.. logic and debate? When logic wears out and gets old, then our society will be in a sorry state indeed. We will be unable to decide fact from fiction.

you are not doing logic, you are finding any excuse to dismiss the truth and justify your following that which is wrong--- you do not have to do that. you have free choice and do not need toplay games. if yu reject God, Jesus and the Bible thatis up to you but to fail to engage in a proper discussion just shows that you are closed-minded and live in a state of denial.

And like I said. Close mindedness is not a bad thing. It prevents me from believing in skeletal pirates, boogiemen under my bed, ghosts in my closet and the fear of being burned for all of eternity if I don't conform.
The fact that you have NO IDEA what a logical fallacy is amuses me though...

then don't accuse me or christians of being closed minded.

"We should be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains fall out"

Originally Posted by archaeologist

then don't accuse me or christians of being closed minded.

Chrsitnas, maybe not.

You, deffinitely.

Originally Posted by archaeologist

then don't accuse me or christians of being closed minded.

There are murderers who say they are christian and murderers who say they are not. How shall we not call a duck a duck if that is what they are? When we see you being the perfect example of something like this, we will call it like we see it since it is as obvious as the nose on our own face.

Originally Posted by Obviously

"We should be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains fall out"

That is too innocent. How about instead: we should be open-minded enough to use our brain in understanding the world but not so open-minded that we let people like archeologist pluck our brain right out of our skull to join him in this self-lobotomy that he calls faith.

Deal.

This should be the forum's own definition of tolerance to other beliefs, as well.

WTF is 'public fisting?'

Forget it, I just looked it up on google.... jeesh that's sick

Originally Posted by Megabrain

WTF is 'public fisting?'

Forget it, I just looked it up on google.... jeesh that's sick

WTF is 'public fisting?'

where was that first said?

There are murderers who say they are christian and murderers who say they are not. How shall we not call a duck a duck if that is what they are

are you saying that Christ doesn't change lives? that a murderer is always a murderer and can't repent of his sins and become a new person?

That is too innocent. How about instead: we should be open-minded enough to use our brain in understanding the world but not so open-minded that we let people like archeologist pluck our brain right out of our skull to join him in this self-lobotomy that he calls faith.

yet you use that same faith to believe in evolution. yo want to believe that a process that knows nothing can influence life forms and gets them to adapt to the enviornment through cruel means.

{cruel means-- sacrificing other life forms for the sake of finding the right combinations so that replacement life forms may live long and happy lives. sounds far worse than God punishing disobedient and sinful people}

Originally Posted by archaeologist

are you saying that Christ doesn't change lives? that a murderer is always a murderer and can't repent of his sins and become a new person?

No. There is hope that you can change, because God exists.

Originally Posted by archaeologist

That is too innocent. How about instead: we should be open-minded enough to use our brain in understanding the world but not so open-minded that we let people like archeologist pluck our brain right out of our skull to join him in this self-lobotomy that he calls faith.

yet you use that same faith to believe in evolution.

Incorrect. My faith is nothing like yours. I do not require people to read a book, get only the answers that some cult reads into it, and reject the results of any scientific inquiry that does not agree with that. That is the self-lobotomy that your cult calls faith. We are all different and believe completely things, it is your cult members that act like programmed robots and brainwashed zombies.

Originally Posted by archaeologist

{cruel means-- sacrificing other life forms for the sake of finding the right combinations so that replacement life forms may live long and happy lives.

Puzzled.... Life forms??? Are you talking about the way you eat meat or take antibioltics to cure yourself of an infection? ok..... but if that is cruel then what about sacrificing other human beings so that you can find happiness with your God? Like in 1 Samuel 15:2-3? You are so full of contradictions it is scary.

Originally Posted by archaeologist

yo want to believe that a process that knows nothing can influence life forms and gets them to adapt to the enviornment through cruel means.

God is not a process or a scientific theory. You might perceive pruning the vine, culling the herd and disciplining children as cruel, but that, not magic, is what it takes in this business of creating life. The process is only the process. The motivation comes from the one who designed the process. But the more question that you don't even ask is, what is that motivation and what is the nature of the process?