Finally Picked a creation stance.

[RickD]

Nah, you're just a little too strong on the GT that's all, GT doesn't make you heretic.

I respectfully disagree Neo. Believing in The GT does make him a heretic.

Just kidding ACB*










*Really not kidding.

[RickD]

Storyteller wrote:

Leaning towards OEC, just can`t see how the earth could be as young as it would be if YEC is true, OEC fits better for me.

Evolution has been what I have been brought up with, it has been my default position for my entire life but it just doesn`t sit quite right with me now.

So......

Any suggestions on what my creation stance is?

Annette,

I think you said it yourself. You lean towards OEC, but at the moment, you're undecided in your creation stance.

ST wrote:
P.S. Agree with pretty much everything ES posted (another hint that perhaps Catholicism is for me?)

Let's hope not! Hopefully it's just a case of you not having all the facts.

[Storyteller]

You are saying lots about you, and you is sounding like me.

I'm not sure if you've read different expositions of Genesis 1 (i.e., YEC, OEC),
but have a read of it and let me know what you read about what is being said is created, etc.

K? Was that directed at me?

If so,
When I read Genesis, it describes how our universe came into existence, it all fits in with the Big Bang and how life progressed.

Are there any good articles that look at it with a YEC or OEC view?

If I go with YEC, how do I explain the fact that the universe is apparently older than it woiuld be if it was YEC? OEC seems to make more sense to me.

I think we were either created as we are or perhaps created with the ability to become what we are. Either way God is behind it. God, to me, is just as active in shaping the world now as He was.
I would have been happy to go with progressive creation but I`m not sure, hundred per cent, about evolution now, which kinda just leaves theistic.

[EssentialSacrifice]

Okay, here is where I am.

Genesis describes the Big Bang and how the universe "evolved" I don`t think it was in literal days, it`s seven stages, if you like.

God created, possibly we have a common ancestor but I`m not totally convinced.

DNA points to intelligent design, were we designed from scratch or are we the result of some tinkering? Not sure. If I absolutely had to decide I think I would be leaning towards God creating man from scratch but then our DNA is so similar to other animals so is the DNA the building block?

God being pro active, even now, makes more sense to me than Him just starting the ball rolling and sitting back and going with the flow. Mind you, if the laws and everything that govern reality were, and are, that precise even God starting it all off and letting things progress make sense.

Leaning towards OEC, just can`t see how the earth could be as young as it would be if YEC is true, OEC fits better for me.

Evolution has been what I have been brought up with, it has been my default position for my entire life but it just doesn`t sit quite right with me now.

So......

Any suggestions on what my creation stance is?

P.S. Agree with pretty much everything ES posted (another hint that perhaps Catholicism is for me?)

I think you are quite right ST. I believe our stances are very similar...

A theory of theistic evolution (TE) — also called evolutionary creation — proposes that God's method of creation was to design a universe in which everything would naturally evolve. Usually the "evolution" in "theistic evolution" means Total Evolution — astronomical evolution (to form galaxies, solar systems,...) and geological evolution (to form the earth's geology) plus chemical evolution (to form the first life) and biological evolution (for the development of life) — (chemical and biological "evolution" being the use of God's materials by God to make man).

Day-age creationism states that the "six days" of the Book of Genesis are not ordinary 24-hour days, but rather much longer periods (for instance, each "day" could be the equivalent of millions, or billions of years of human time)

theorists can therefore agree with the scientific consensus regarding the age of the Earth and Universe, while maintaining a literal interpretation of the biblical text.

Strictly speaking, day-age creationism is not so much a creationist theory as a hermeneutic option which may be combined with theories such as progressive creationism.

Progressive creationism holds that species have changed or evolved in a process continuously guided by God, with various ideas as to how the process operated—though it is generally taken that God directly intervened in the natural order at key moments in Earth history.

From a theistic viewpoint, the underlying laws of nature were designed by God for a purpose, and are so self-sufficient that the complexity of the entire physical universe evolved from fundamental particles in processes such as stellar evolution, life forms developed biologically , and in the same way the origin of life by God has resulted from these laws.[84]

Catholicism holds that God initiated and continued the process of his evolutionary creation, that Adam and Eve were real people (the Church rejects polygenism) and affirms that all humans, whether specially created or evolved, have and have always had specially created souls for each individual.[3][4]

[Kurieuo]

You are saying lots about you, and you is sounding like me.

I'm not sure if you've read different expositions of Genesis 1 (i.e., YEC, OEC),
but have a read of it and let me know what you read about what is being said is created, etc.

K? Was that directed at me?

If so,
When I read Genesis, it describes how our universe came into existence, it all fits in with the Big Bang and how life progressed.

Are there any good articles that look at it with a YEC or OEC view?

If I go with YEC, how do I explain the fact that the universe is apparently older than it woiuld be if it was YEC? OEC seems to make more sense to me.

I think we were either created as we are or perhaps created with the ability to become what we are. Either way God is behind it. God, to me, is just as active in shaping the world now as He was.
I would have been happy to go with progressive creation but I`m not sure, hundred per cent, about evolution now, which kinda just leaves theistic.

Hi A -- yes, that was directed at you.

I was a bit unclear, but trying to say that what you wrote is basically Progressive Creation like what I believe.

Good articles? With the Day-Age position there are Reasons to Believe and this website site (G&S).
I recommend that you read each of the G&S articles here one by one if you haven't.

If you go with YEC, then you basically have to believe God made everything in a way we interpret to be old.
That's a line an old poster here took (Felgar), and that is what I believe Jac believes.
Kind of like how Adam and Eve were adults at one day old rather than babies.

As for evolution, well you need to make to decision on whether the science really supports it?
I believe the science doesn't support it, especially with convergent evolution which to me more points towards direct intervention (like we'd expect in Progressive Creation).

If you also accept Scripture as foundational to truth, then you secondly need to read whether Scripture supports such.
You might come to an irreconcilable conclusion that Scripture does not support evolution and science does.
How you handle that, I don't know. Neo-X drops Scripture, PaulS allegorises Scripture I think.

[EssentialSacrifice]

As for evolution, well you need to make to decision on whether the science really supports it?
I believe the science doesn't support it, especially with convergent evolution which to me more points towards direct intervention (like we'd expect in Progressive Creation).

K... would the direct intervention look the same as that of the process of evolution ? I firmly believe that everything is in the hands of God, even evolution if I could ever get a handle on exactly what evolution is. Generally, I believe evolution is the advancement of processes for the benefit of life as God has ordained. I very much feel an affinity towards PC but can also see the validity of TE, but under the auspices of my own definitions. I haven't come across the defined creation stance that completely fills the bill. I'm going to read the articles you gave ST (thanks for that) and return.

[Storyteller]

Okay, am going to give all this a little more thought but I suppose so far Day Age PC seems to fit the best.

Like ES says though, it`s not quite hit the nail on the head but maybe it never will.

[neo-x]

The only problem with day age is that it inserts ages into a text which most certainly never reads as such, was never written as such, nor even referenced as such throughout the whole of scripture, nor this idea was even in existence an iota, as such, until we discovered fossils unaccounted for on this planet.

I would be surprised to find, if ever that be the case, that Moses was a Dayage proponent.

[Storyteller]

neo?

Do you believe God created the universe in 6 literal 24 hour periods then?

[neo-x]

neo?

Do you believe God created the universe in 6 literal 24 hour periods then?

I don't, but that was what Moses wrote and believed, and it is what the Bible says. So whatever we may or must believe in order to satisfy our own intellect, shall we say, it is also always good to see what the text intended to say.

[Storyteller]

Thanks neo

Where will I find it in the Bible, just out of interest?

[Kurieuo]

As for evolution, well you need to make to decision on whether the science really supports it?
I believe the science doesn't support it, especially with convergent evolution which to me more points towards direct intervention (like we'd expect in Progressive Creation).

K... would the direct intervention look the same as that of the process of evolution ? I firmly believe that everything is in the hands of God, even evolution if I could ever get a handle on exactly what evolution is. Generally, I believe evolution is the advancement of processes for the benefit of life as God has ordained. I very much feel an affinity towards PC but can also see the validity of TE, but under the auspices of my own definitions. I haven't come across the defined creation stance that completely fills the bill. I'm going to read the articles you gave ST (thanks for that) and return.

By direct intervention I simply means that God is directly involved in the creation process.
Such could be God creating everything in six 24-hour days. It could be God creating life progressively over the span of millions and billions of years.

Evidence-wise however, progressive creation can turn up very similar evidence normally used to justify a common descent via evolution.
Such evidence could look quite the same. I'd like to direct you to a related previous post of mine here.

[neo-x]

Thanks neo

Where will I find it in the Bible, just out of interest?

Everywhere actually, once you stop reading in between the lines what is not there and read what it says. This is called exegesis - the process of drawing out the meaning from a text in accordance with the context and discoverable meaning of its author, as opposed to eisegesis which is a reader's interpretation, forced on a text.

Regardless of the creation debate, this should always be anyone's first and only rule to engage a text.

[Storyteller]

If the Bible states it as happening in 6 literal days then why do you not believe it?

(And all I am doing here is trying to understand what people believe and why)

[neo-x]

If the Bible states it as happening in 6 literal days then why do you not believe it?

(And all I am doing here is trying to understand what people believe and why)

Because, based on evidence, I think its in error there (just like when it says that the sun stopped moving not knowing that its the earth which revolves around the sun and not the other way around). The author believed it to be and so that is what we get from it. That story is not meant to be taken as an allegory at all. It is pretty clear from the text that it was very much written to be taken as is and also be told to the people and their generations so they could remember it and preserve it.

So we can't call it an allegory since the author never treats it as an allegory, we can't call it complete fact because we know that parts of the story could not be true, like the bit about first humans and the physical death etc. However I am inclined to agree that Adam and Eve must have had an encounter with God or that God chose them to start the Hebrew race.

I am in a severe minority on this position (as you soon shall find out if someone comments on my post) since most T.E's don't go this far. My only regret is that most workaround the problem by calling the text an allegory, which in my opinion is a blatant mistake to make since it trivializes the text.