YE creationism is no older than the last century. .
So, Moses was a theistic evolutionist? or an OE creationist..... I highly doubt it. Just because the term YE creationist was not formed until later does not mean that there weren't YE creationists. The only reason for the term YE creationism is due to the arrival of an OE view. Otherwise YE was just the truth.........and still is.
Seems to me, that an omnipotent Creator, who creates a world to do His will, is far more capable than the little "designer" deity, who must create things separately. As St. Augustine wrote, Genesis shows a seamless creation by an omnipotent Creator.
So, a God who made each kind of plant and animal, individually, is less capable than a creator that creates one life and says "there ya go let's watch this"? That's a joke.
Also, I put as much stake in what St Augustine says, if that's what he meant, as I do in the Pope with his apostate statement that evolution is true...
YE creationists reject God's word and substitute their new doctrines.
Theistic evolution and bio logos is an apostate doctrine meant to water down the truth of God's word, attract the minds of the naive and deviate from the truth of the scriptures. It is the lie of Satan who deceives the world and causes many to question the true omnipotence of God.
Face it, if evolution were true, then there would be no alternative to the one and only God.
You face it, evolution could be perfectly happy and possible without God... Oh, except for that one tiny hiccup of where life all started. Then it's crash the gates doing 98 and let those truckers roll....10/4
YE creationism would fit Baal, Cronus, and a host of other less-than-omnipotent Gods. God is a lot wiser and a great deal more competent than YE creationists would like Him to be.
I'm pretty sure that Elijah put to rest the difference in the power of all those man made god's which were all wishful thinking and hopes and dreams of the spiritually bankrupt.
Ya, God burned Elijah's alter, all the water and all the other alters on mount Carmel....So if you mention the likes of Baal, Cronus or any other "god" in the same sentence as the one true God..... I will once and for all understand the depth of your knowledge, integrity and wisdom as far as the truth about God and count it as bankrupt to the same extent as all those "priests" that were killed as a result of Gods display at mount Carmel.
And as you know, the origin of life has nothing to do with evolution. If (as Darwin suggested) God just created the first living things miraculously, evolution would still look exactly as it does now.
Thank you. I was hoping you would state the biggest cop out of the modern explanation of the existence of all life.
This "ya, all life started from one and evolved into all the wondrous life forms we have today, over billions of years" is always backed up by fascinating imaginative epic stories based on the pathetically disappointing fossil record and then propped up by the best bait and switch ever perpetrated by stating "well, we don't know where the first life form came from, so we won't go there". Pathetic.
You can say which animal morphed from which all the way down to the one solitary life that you won't touch with a ten foot pole.
What a joke. If you can't say where it started or how it started, you cannot state where it went after that.
In science, theories are only about things they make claims about. Since evolutionary theory doesn't say how life began, Darwin's suggestion that God just did it, is as compatible with evolution as abiogenesis. However, the evidence for abiogenesis is accumulating, and it appears that God had it right when He said the Earth brought forth living things. And yes, that does directly contradict the "life ex nihilo" doctrine of YE creationism.
More of the same... Show me where life began, then get back to me.
No. For example, hearts long preceded humans. The universe long preceded hearts. And most living things don't have hearts. But there's no mystery to why hearts beat. Would you like to learn about it?
Is this the heart of your argument? I'm done. Not even going to comment on the rest of this absurd thought process.
Geotropism is not a mystery, either.
Gravitropism is an integral part of plant growth, orienting its position to maximize contact with sunlight, as well as ensuring that the roots are growing in the correct direction. Growth due to gravitropism is mediated by changes in concentration of the plant hormone auxin within plant cells.
Differential sensitivity to auxin helps explain Darwin's original observation that stems and roots respond in the opposite way to the forces of gravity. In both roots and stems, auxin accumulates towards the gravity vector on the lower side. In roots, this results in the inhibition of cell expansion on the lower side and the concomitant curvature of the roots towards gravity (positive gravitropism). In stems, the auxin also accumulates on the lower side, however in this tissue it increases cell expansion and results in the shoot curving up (statolithic gravitropism).
Upward growth of plant parts, against gravity, is called "negative gravitropism", and downward growth of roots is called "positive gravitropism".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitropism
The distribution of auxins is affected by statoliths, that accumulate in the lower side of roots, inhibiting growth there, causing the root to grow downward.
If you think so, you're selling God short. In a world where nature itself is His creation, every particle must be directly supported and observed by God. This is why YE creationism fails.
