Christian Forums

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Christian Forum aspires to be an online community where Christians can come together in fellowship with the purpose to encourage, inspire and build up our faith in Christ Jesus. John 13:34-35
  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

  • Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses

[_ Old Earth _] Creation Thoery Model.

Milk-Drops

Member
From
Kewana, Indiana
Gender
Male
Christian
No
Messages
4,189
Joined
Apr 10, 2012
For the sake of Clarity, can we please have a creation theory model that can be referenced. I'm asking proponents of Creationism or Creation Science, or Creation Science Evangelism to present a useful theory of what exactly Creationism is.

I would also ask that the model not just be a comparison to how Evolution can't answer this or that, the theory should be able to stand on its own.

Please and thank you.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

theLords

Member
From
GMT-4
Gender
Female
Christian
Yes
Messages
4,720
Joined
Sep 12, 2010
Here you go Lance. A picture of creation! Tehe.

attachment.php
 

Milk-Drops

Member
From
Kewana, Indiana
Gender
Male
Christian
No
Messages
4,189
Joined
Apr 10, 2012
I guess ridicule is the only thing I should come to expect from people. Everytime I try and see hope in people I'm shown that it just isn't worth it and I should just accept that I'm alone and noone cares about anything, except what they can tear down.
 

theLords

Member
From
GMT-4
Gender
Female
Christian
Yes
Messages
4,720
Joined
Sep 12, 2010
I guess ridicule is the only thing I should come to expect from people. Everytime I try and see hope in people I'm shown that it just isn't worth it and I should just accept that I'm alone and noone cares about anything, except what they can tear down.

It is a cute picture, Lance. It was a rather funny joke, I think. (But, I suppose I'm biased). Just a joke, Lance, just a joke. No need for doom and gloom.
 

Barbarian

Member
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
Messages
28,085
Joined
Jun 5, 2003
Other than the fact that God doesn't really have a physical body, or look like a big old bearded guy, it's not really that weird a picture. He did, as the picture suggests, create nature, and then use that created thing to make everything else.
 

Claudya

Member
From
Jena, Germany
Gender
Female
Christian
Yes
Messages
4,637
Joined
Oct 16, 2012
I guess ridicule is the only thing I should come to expect from people. Everytime I try and see hope in people I'm shown that it just isn't worth it and I should just accept that I'm alone and noone cares about anything, except what they can tear down.

You're asking for something impossible. So don't be surprised about the unsatisfying results.
(Though that image is rather beautiful and quite fitting. It underlines the symbolic metaphorical nature of the Biblical creation accounts; just like God in that awesome renaissance painting is just painted down poetry, so is the Genesis creation story a poetic metaphor for the unimaginable and unwordable creation of everything... but I guess that's off topic. Just wanted to say that picture betrays more of the truth than you'd guess and thus it's a great contribution to the debate.)

Wha you ask for is impossible because the creation science stuff was only started in order to disprove the science of evolution. So creationism can't stand on it's own, it was only ever intended to be an antagonist to something else. That (and not faith or so) is the most central core of creationism's identity. So there will be no scientific theory of creation other than "We believe in the Bible and we believe the evolution theory has it wrong/ is evil, because.... "
 

Sparkey

Retired
Supporter
From
The Great Pacific Northwest
Gender
Male
Messages
10,784
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Isn't what you are asking for covered in the Word of God? Creationism = Beliefs surrounding the creation [of God].

You're inclusion of the word "model" escapes me. You'd want me to create something that models what God created? You'll have to give me a couple seconds. I don't know where to find my Sparrowhawke-spoke-and-it-was-good thingy.
 

Milk-Drops

Member
From
Kewana, Indiana
Gender
Male
Christian
No
Messages
4,189
Joined
Apr 10, 2012
Isn't what you are asking for covered in the Word of God? Creationism = Beliefs surrounding the creation [of God].

You're inclusion of the word "model" escapes me. You'd want me to create something that models what God created? You'll have to give me a couple seconds. I don't know where to find my Sparrowhawke-spoke-and-it-was-good thingy.
I'm in a better head space today.

When discussing theories There is a model used to explain how the theory works. For example. In the theory of Evolution The model is natural selection and various selection pressures.
The models are then able to be tested to show if the theory is correct, wrong, or needs modified.

A good way to test this for the theory of Evolution is to propose the hypothesis that if a species is observed in different habitats, the species will adapt or die in the specific habitat. Those that adapt will develop means to adapt.

For the sake of science if one proposes a Creation theory, it is reasonable to then ask for a model. For instance if we use the Genesis account where the sequence of events are mentioned. It is reasonable to then ask, How do we know it happened this way?

What can we point to that shows that the universe, organisms, the planets, etc all formed in the order stated by Genesis?

The reason I ask for this, is because a few users are using something they are calling the Creation theory. However, if the Creation theory doesn't have a model or a way to explain how God did what he did. Then it isn't actually a theory. Its an assertion taken on faith. Meaning its not actually science, but a presupposition that is applied to science, and can't be tested by science.

Do you see what I mean by this?
 

Sparkey

Retired
Supporter
From
The Great Pacific Northwest
Gender
Male
Messages
10,784
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Yes, I can see what you mean better now that I've heard your thinking on it but I really doubt there is such a thing as a testable creation theory model. I do accept creation on faith and do not consider it a theory. But that's just me.
 

Milk-Drops

Member
From
Kewana, Indiana
Gender
Male
Christian
No
Messages
4,189
Joined
Apr 10, 2012
Yes, I can see what you mean better now that I've heard your thinking on it but I really doubt there is such a thing as a testable creation theory model. I do accept creation on faith and do not consider it a theory. But that's just me.
As I've mentioned in other threads. I really don't mind and can accept when someone takes something on faith. It doesn't bother me. I created this thread to possibly attract those who hold to Creation Theory to present one if they think they have it. There is so much of people here wanting to disprove evolution, but I don't think those that want to disprove it know exactly what it is they are disproving and what it means if it is disproved.
 

Vaccine

Member
From
Maine
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
Messages
990
Joined
Apr 22, 2013
Isn't what you are asking for covered in the Word of God? Creationism = Beliefs surrounding the creation [of God].

However, if the Creation theory doesn't have a model or a way to explain how God did what he did. Then it isn't actually a theory. Its an assertion taken on faith. Meaning its not actually science, but a presupposition that is applied to science, and can't be tested by science.

Do you see what I mean by this?

Good evening MBS, I do see what you mean. From my point of view there is a distinction between philosophy and science. Creationism is a set of beliefs, a philosophy. Not something that can be verified or tested, it's just who people are and what they believe. The theory of evolution is science. I know, shocking coming from me, but I'm only critical of it's explaining power and philosophies that have spawned from the science. But if you're looking for something testable, I'd suggest intelligent design theory.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Milk-Drops

Member
From
Kewana, Indiana
Gender
Male
Christian
No
Messages
4,189
Joined
Apr 10, 2012
Good evening MBS, I do see what you mean. From my point of view there is a distinction between philosophy and science. Creationism is a set of beliefs, a philosophy. Not something that can be verified or tested, it's just who people are and what they believe. The theory of evolution is science. I know, shocking coming from me, but I'm only critical of it's explaining power and philosophies that have spawned from the science.
Alright. I think we are on a better page now. May I ask what philosophies you are talking about when it comes to the theory of Evoltuion?
But if you're looking for something testable, I'd suggest intelligent design theory.
The reason I don't buy into intelligent design theory is because it seems to be a theory based around the concept of plugging God or a designer into the unknown spots of science. If that works for you, that is cool. However, for myself I don't find it substantial enough. Considering that most of the research is mostly about disproving the theory of evolution rather than actually exposing a real model.
 

Vaccine

Member
From
Maine
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
Messages
990
Joined
Apr 22, 2013
Good evening MBS, I do see what you mean. From my point of view there is a distinction between philosophy and science. Creationism is a set of beliefs, a philosophy. Not something that can be verified or tested, it's just who people are and what they believe. The theory of evolution is science. I know, shocking coming from me, but I'm only critical of it's explaining power and philosophies that have spawned from the science.
Alright. I think we are on a better page now. May I ask what philosophies you are talking about when it comes to the theory of Evoltuion?
Hmm. Survival of the fittest. I don't mean to imply all wall street traders adopt that philosophy, but I've heard some come right out and say they deserve 6 or 7 figure salaries because they are smarter/more cunning than the rest. I think the old CEO of TYCO thought like that too.
The reason I don't buy into intelligent design theory is because it seems to be a theory based around the concept of plugging God or a designer into the unknown spots of science. If that works for you, that is cool. However, for myself I don't find it substantial enough. Considering that most of the research is mostly about disproving the theory of evolution rather than actually exposing a real model.
Fair enough.
 

Milk-Drops

Member
From
Kewana, Indiana
Gender
Male
Christian
No
Messages
4,189
Joined
Apr 10, 2012
Hmm. Survival of the fittest. I don't mean to imply all wall street traders adopt that philosophy, but I've heard some come right out and say they deserve 6 or 7 figure salaries because they are smarter/more cunning than the rest. I think the old CEO of TYCO thought like that too.
The theory itself doesn't really have a philosophy. Its just an observation of how in nature, the organisms most fit for their environment tend to survive. This just entails being able to reproduce though. In a sense the philosophy is probably more of a primitive left over from just the desire to obtain more resources to be seen as Alpha. Considering we are very social, it makes sense that social dynamics and status would still be very instinctual.

Considering that we as humans aren't slave to our instincts, its not that the Theory of Evolution is demanding and giving a philosophy. Its more that some people are just willing to give into power and for get to be rational.
 

Vaccine

Member
From
Maine
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
Messages
990
Joined
Apr 22, 2013
Considering that we as humans aren't slave to our instincts, its not that the Theory of Evolution is demanding and giving a philosophy. Its more that some people are just willing to give into power and for get to be rational.

I'm impressed, well put. I feel some people use, as in exploit, it even though doing such is as you said, irrational.
 

Claudya

Member
From
Jena, Germany
Gender
Female
Christian
Yes
Messages
4,637
Joined
Oct 16, 2012
Hmm. Survival of the fittest. I don't mean to imply all wall street traders adopt that philosophy, but I've heard some come right out and say they deserve 6 or 7 figure salaries because they are smarter/more cunning than the rest. I think the old CEO of TYCO thought like that too.

That wouldn't be an evolutionist approach at all. In nature's and humankind's history oftentimes the fittest weren't the strongest and most competitive ones, but the cooperative ones that were able to relinquish personal gain for the sake of the survival of their group/ family/ tribe. By supporting family or relatives you also increase the chances for your own genes to survive (since you are genetically related to them), and you strengthen and protect your group, increasing your own survival and mating chances. Looking at evolution life had the tendency to form larger and more complex structures with more individuals, families, tribes, and nations cooperating. Blessed be the altruistic ones, for they shall inherit the earth. The wall street traders with their unbecoming demands for payment will only get so far until they are no longer accepted within their companies.
 

Vaccine

Member
From
Maine
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
Messages
990
Joined
Apr 22, 2013
the cooperative ones that were able to relinquish personal gain for the sake of the survival of their group/ family/ tribe. By supporting family or relatives you also increase the chances for your own genes to survive (since you are genetically related to them), and you strengthen and protect your group, increasing your own survival and mating chances.

Hi Claudya! An evolutionary view involving the survival of the fittest herd or flock. I guess when I think of survival of the fittest I tend to focus on the predators and overlook the rest of life trying to survive. Thanks for sharing that point of view.
 

Barbarian

Member
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
Messages
28,085
Joined
Jun 5, 2003
Darwin himself warned against trying to draw a moral message from nature. We are animals. But we also have an immortal soul and the ability to understand good and evil. It's not just that humans are social animals, who are naturally altruistic; it's that we have a higher nature that we cannot ignore.
 

stovebolts

Staff member
Administrator
From
Michigan
Gender
Male
Messages
17,225
Joined
Nov 4, 2004
Isn't what you are asking for covered in the Word of God? Creationism = Beliefs surrounding the creation [of God].

You're inclusion of the word "model" escapes me. You'd want me to create something that models what God created? You'll have to give me a couple seconds. I don't know where to find my Sparrowhawke-spoke-and-it-was-good thingy.
I'm in a better head space today.

When discussing theories There is a model used to explain how the theory works. For example. In the theory of Evolution The model is natural selection and various selection pressures.
The models are then able to be tested to show if the theory is correct, wrong, or needs modified.

A good way to test this for the theory of Evolution is to propose the hypothesis that if a species is observed in different habitats, the species will adapt or die in the specific habitat. Those that adapt will develop means to adapt.

For the sake of science if one proposes a Creation theory, it is reasonable to then ask for a model. For instance if we use the Genesis account where the sequence of events are mentioned. It is reasonable to then ask, How do we know it happened this way?

What can we point to that shows that the universe, organisms, the planets, etc all formed in the order stated by Genesis?

The reason I ask for this, is because a few users are using something they are calling the Creation theory. However, if the Creation theory doesn't have a model or a way to explain how God did what he did. Then it isn't actually a theory. Its an assertion taken on faith. Meaning its not actually science, but a presupposition that is applied to science, and can't be tested by science.

Do you see what I mean by this?

Hi Meatball Sub,

A concept I had a hard time really understanding was the concept between Observational Science and Historical Science. When you start to understand these two different terms, then you'll see that those that assert Evolution Theory as true use as much faith as those who assert Creation Theory is true.

We know that observational science is true because we can see it, test it and verify it. When you drop a rock, it falls and we can repeat this test and each time, we observe the rock falls. In this way, the theory of gravity is affirmed. Go into outerspace, and we find that this law no longer applies, so the law of gravity gets refined ot accommodate for different anomalies.

Natural selection and adaptation are readily seen through observational science, and both theories of Evolution and theories of Creation can be formed around observational science. This brings us to Historical science and where these different views of the past come into play. Nobody was around 10,000 years ago taking samples and writing stuff down, so we can only assume from what we see today how things may have been say 6,500 years ago or so and really, that's where the debate is and frankly, ones view is going to be biased upon which assumptions one takes as better representing the truth.

For example: Evolution says we came from the oceans and at one time we were single celled entities and though Evolution, we turned into fish, then lizards, then rodents, monkeys and then humans. All of this is based on theory which is derived from observational science, yet nobody was around when as Evolution explains as a big bang, and in likeness, nobody was around when, as the Biblical account states, "And God said". Both of these assertions are taken on faith, the only differences is, "Faith in what".

I think where the real crime is committed is when Evolutionists and Creationists pit the Bible against observational science because observational science can confirm both Evolution and Creation theories. Again, it depends on what and how your putting your faith in.
 

Milk-Drops

Member
From
Kewana, Indiana
Gender
Male
Christian
No
Messages
4,189
Joined
Apr 10, 2012
Hi Meatball Sub,
Hello


We know that observational science is true because we can see it, test it and verify it.

Natural selection and adaptation are readily seen through observational science, and both theories of Evolution and theories of Creation can be formed around observational science.
Well, first we need to define our theories and their mechanics. For instance natural selection is the mechanic that states that the best fit organisms will be most likely to survive in an environment. The theory of Evolution states that organisms adapt and change over time through lineages. Those that don't or can't adapt go extinct. Could you define the creation theory please?

For example: Evolution says we came from the oceans and at one time we were single celled entities and though Evolution, we turned into fish, then lizards, then rodents, monkeys and then humans. All of this is based on theory which is derived from observational science, yet nobody was around when as Evolution explains as a big bang, and in likeness, nobody was around when, as the Biblical account states, "And God said". Both of these assertions are taken on faith, the only differences is, "Faith in what".
I'm going to state, for what is probably the hundreth time on this board, that the big Bang and the theory of Evolution are not one in the same or the same theory. They are in completely differnt field of science.

For observable aspect. Common decent is based off of several observed instances. For instance, natural selection is understood and so is genetics. The test for common decent, or decent in general is a combination of homology, time periods, and genetics. From what is observed, Modern species and organisms are pretty time specific. They can usually only be found in recent rock and soil layers for fossils. There are specific organisms that appear in past layers, that no longer exist due to extinction. Applying what we understand about both Natural selection, Homology, and genetics ( when able to test this way), biologists have discovered that species have similar roots. So the theory is that species can be tracked with phylogenetics and Linean taxonomy.

An easy way to disprove this theory would be to find modern mammals, Reptiles, and even fish in rock layers that predate specimens found later. For instance, if we found modern Rabbits, Tigers, or even birds in the Cambrian layers, that would be hugely troubling.

This does fit observable science. Mainly because we can observe this and test this.

I think where the real crime is committed is when Evolutionists and Creationists pit the Bible against observational science because observational science can confirm both Evolution and Creation theories. Again, it depends on what and how your putting your faith in.
Well first you need a testable creation theory. ;)
 
Top