ECT Einstein's theory of Creation clears confusion!

[6days]

Evolutionism is an outdated term

Not outdated in the least, but it's a word evolutionists don't like.

But neither do explain the origin of life, just what (may or may not, depending on belief) happens to it once it is there.

the word evolutionism encompasses all types of evolutionary beliefs such as chemical evolution and stellar evolution.... not just beliefs in common ancestry

I think there are valid biblical arguments for my point of view

And I don't think your arguments are valid as they weaken the gospel, and cause newborns in faith to reject other parts of scripture.

We're basically on the same side

Yes... true. We can be brother in Christ and disagree.

However we disagree on something I think is the biggest weapon that Satan currently uses to attack the gospel. Evolutionism erodes the foundation to the Gospel.*

 

[Derf]

I'll respond to each of those things, but take a look for an instant at the title of this thread and compare it to the words quoted from your last post. Does anything in the quoted post have anything to do with Einstein? Anything? So, if I'm supposed to get something out of your posts, wouldn't it help for them to stick with the topic, so you don't accuse me (and others) of hijacking your threads to talk about something else?????

Personally, I like to talk about Einstein's theory of relativity--I learn something almost every time.

In order:
I responded to your OP, so I'm not sure which "last post" you are talking about. I did read your OP.

I'll assume for the moment that you are not talking about 2 different gods, but that you are trying to draw a distinction between a general interaction with creation and a covenant interaction with God's chosen people, is that correct? (See, I did read your previous thread! )

Again, I'll try not to focus on the idea that first comes to mind: that you seem to be talking about 2 different gods. I think you are saying that there were 2 creation events, one which was more general, and one that was for the people of God, right?

:think::think::think: Ok, now I've thought about them. To answer your question, yes, there could have been a reason different words and meanings were used in the 2 passages. One is what I mentioned above--it could have been talking about 2 different gods, yes? Or, it could have been written by 2 different people (we talked about this in your other thread--don't you even read my posts? Please read all of my posts rather than asking me to keep repeating myself. Oh, wait, that's what you said to me, sorry I'm not very original.) Or, as you suggest, it could be talking about a different activity.

So, I'm willing to go down the road of that last option to see how it could play out.

First, even if it's 2 different activities, we still need to deal with Ex 20:11 that says God created both the heavens and the earth AND ALL THAT IS IN THEM in six days before He rested on the seventh day. This was being given to the children of Israel at Mt Sinai, so when it says "all that is in them" it can't mean all that was in them before some great catastrophe. The earth might have been destroyed and replenished several times, but according to It also seems like it doesn't make sense that God would refer to something that happened outside of His interaction with His chosen people to give them a covenantal connection to a special day set aside for them--the Sabbath--but that's not a show stopper.

Second, what does it mean to have Man created on day 6 and then have Adam created on some other day? For one thing, Adam's sin would not have the effect of causing all men to have to die, because some must have lived (and died, I expect) without any contact with Adam, if there was a separate creation. But by the first Adam came death, and sin, too (Rom 5:12. Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned).

Third, the name "Adam" is taken from the word for dirt. So is the noun "man". The words (man and Adam) are very similar. I don't know Hebrew, but it seems to me that if both were so-called because God made them from dirt, then either God made 2 Adams or he only made one.

What do you think? I still haven't figured out how to get Einstein into this discussion--can you explain that connection?

Hello?? Where did you go Iamaberean?

 

[Interplanner]

It's nice that the scientist can work out a theory about what time is like 1MLY from here, but we must be here now. The text was not written with a theory about things 1MLY away from here in mind. It was about here, and fairly recently.

 

[relaff]

However we disagree on something I think is the biggest weapon that Satan currently uses to attack the gospel. Evolutionism erodes the foundation to the Gospel.*

Well, that's because you didn't really understand what I was trying to say. I basically said that evolution is just a principle and that it cannot explain where life comes from, so that all points to creation in the way it's described in the bible.

The problem is that many people, most of them who have no clue about the principle of evolution, think that it explains everything, while it doesn't. That could be called evolutionism, but I'd rather call it stupid ;-)

However, that doesn't change that I can easily observe the principle of evolution. Throw a bunch of bacteria in a petri dish, feed them with something they don't like and they'll change one or two genes to adapt. So I would assume that God established this, since he created everything. Yet, and once more, this "little evolution" neither creates life nor does it even explain how a bacteria turns into a mouse (it doesn't even change the bacteria from one species to another).

 

[Interplanner]

Well, that's because you didn't really understand what I was trying to say. I basically said that evolution is just a principle and that it cannot explain where life comes from, so that all points to creation in the way it's described in the bible.

The problem is that many people, most of them who have no clue about the principle of evolution, think that it explains everything, while it doesn't. That could be called evolutionism, but I'd rather call it stupid ;-)

However, that doesn't change that I can easily observe the principle of evolution. Throw a bunch of bacteria in a petri dish, feed them with something they don't like and they'll change one or two genes to adapt. So I would assume that God established this, since he created everything. Yet, and once more, this "little evolution" neither creates life nor does it even explain how a bacteria turns into a mouse (it doesn't even change the bacteria from one species to another).

I agree with this little version; the snowjob of the elites is to say that because they see that happen in one organism's lifespan, that they can therefore extrapolate things out millions of years. Last fall NRBtv broadcast a conference where one seminar was the case study of the F. or C. elegantis fruitfly to show how misguided that is. The fly reproduces right at the end of its life so the one-off adaption never gets the chance to be passed on, no matter how often it shows up.

The same fantastical extrapolation is what Lyell did with too few samples around him, because he made the fundamental(ist) mistake of bad science: to write a treatment because he wanted to off Moses and Genesis, and said so. That's not a reason or a resource. It's a way of sound-canceling.

 

[relaff]

I agree with this little version; the snowjob of the elites is to say that because they see that happen in one organism's lifespan, that they can therefore extrapolate things out millions of years.

Good point. It's all a big theory, but it's being sold as truth. And I get very careful when somebody tries to sell me a new truth, because I already have one which I'm very fond of. ;-)

 

[Derf]

Well, that's because you didn't really understand what I was trying to say. I basically said that evolution is just a principle and that it cannot explain where life comes from, so that all points to creation in the way it's described in the bible.

The problem is that many people, most of them who have no clue about the principle of evolution, think that it explains everything, while it doesn't. That could be called evolutionism, but I'd rather call it stupid ;-)

However, that doesn't change that I can easily observe the principle of evolution. Throw a bunch of bacteria in a petri dish, feed them with something they don't like and they'll change one or two genes to adapt. So I would assume that God established this, since he created everything. Yet, and once more, this "little evolution" neither creates life nor does it even explain how a bacteria turns into a mouse (it doesn't even change the bacteria from one species to another).

What is this "principle of evolution" you mention?