/Creation General/

Here you can post everything about Evolution, Creation, interpretation of Genesis and so on. I figured that it would be better to have this contamination thread, instead of dozens of similar threads clogging and polluting this board.
Also, please sticky it, mods.
No, every Christian, both evolutionist and creationist, believes that God made everything…unless you dont believe in that…wait, what are you doing here?

Attached: 1_KoFtFrHUdM2gNvCat3175Q.jpeg (1100x682, 206.53K)

Other urls found in this thread:

kolbecenter.org/
youtube.com/watch?v=1YMMKSx_R6c&list=PL13eE2x3qhPmDJCPm9F2cjckCUdUSubU1
youtube.com/watch?v=shyI-aQaXD0
youtube.com/watch?v=nbqtPqnOA_c&t=1058s
youtube.com/watch?v=YrkYDzILgtA
creatio.orthodoxy.ru/english/rose_genesis/index.html
vocaroo.com/i/s1pJQJ9i6hVN
youtu.be/dDBFhM_ViqM?list=PLmiAycMDMUDPGSb40Ry8kKmTWUh4DCfwf&t=47
youtu.be/N6DR9k3rPZQ?t=572
youtu.be/zssD9UILTfw?list=PLmiAycMDMUDPGSb40Ry8kKmTWUh4DCfwf&t=1043
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Mucho gracias.

Reminder: God used evolution as a tool to create human life. (((Creationists))) are zog shills.

Instead of painting everyone with an different view as Jew puppets, why not simply present your reasoning for your views? As opposed to presenting your idea of someone else's reasoning for someone else's views. Maybe people can learn something in this thread.

sage

I used to believe in trans-species evolution but then I've actually read Humani generis, heard about genetic entropy, and real embryology, and tests on supposedly millions years of old bones etc etc so I don't anymore.

maybe you could elaborate and provide some links

This isn't a new thing pushed by the liberals is it?

He means emergence of new species from old ones due to evolution

kolbecenter.org/

What he said
It is good thing for me that I see prefix "trans" as a latin thing not liberal, right?

If the creation story and everything pre-tower if babel is justva metaphor then why in the hindreds of times it's mentioned it never comes off as a metaphor? Like in Habrews 11 he talks about Abel, Enoch, and Noah as if they're real people then talks about other prophets

4 By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh.

5 By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God.

6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

7 By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.

sorry about all the spelling errors. That's what I get for being a phoneposter

Reminder that the concept of a deathless creation is from a man's interpretation, not Genesis itself.

Attached: TDSOYECb-13.jpg (3196x1658, 1.68M)

"But by the envy of the devil, death came into the world"

1)This is from Wisdom of Solomon, a deuterocanonical Book
2)Death came to the world refers to humans, who, alongside angels (demons included) are only immortal beings in creation.

So it's part of the Bible.
Except it was used by Catholics since ever in broader context. For exemple Catechism states: "God did not make death, and he does not delight in the death of the living. . . It was through the devil's envy that death entered the world" (Wis 1:13; 2:24).
And Wisdom 1:13 is quite clear that it means death in universal sense.

I'm still quite curious to see YEC explanations for some creatures, such as the baleen whales who feed on krill (animal life) in order to survive yet must have eaten vegetation of some sort, insects resembling thorns despite such characteristics making no sense in a world without thorns, or flightless birds when concerning which they were created and what sorts of adaptations were already present depending on the day.

Attached: de4e95e0573b1675e4d907aa3311d9ad.jpg (1200x927 483.62 KB, 169K)

Reminder: Creationism was what was believed for thousands of years by many people including Church leaders. Evolution is a very recently created scam that is now the "politically correct" way to think.

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (238x350 218.28 KB, 224.95K)

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (350x261 234.03 KB, 217.02K)

Smh

sorry bud i posted them out of order my b

Reminder: YEC does not imply flood geology or its many modern-day adherents

No it's fine, it's just if we're going off the first chapter, God made humans as male and female, not one and then the other.

So, ima try not to mess this up, and i might be doing a disservice here, to the orthodox faith. But my understanding is that Prior to the fall of man, Animals, and plant life was not always working in this parasitic, or harmful way, so for instance Mosquitoes were not always functioning like a parasite. And that the idea of weeds, or thorns, and thistles came after the fall. Is basically what i've gotten so far, and that the entire universe was under different metaphysical rules and properties. Just a layman, not a Thd on this, and fairly new to the faith. But that seems to be the idea behind it. Also i remember that from the orthodox prespective, when Adam names the animals, it isn't like oh ok i'll name you deer, lion, etc. No the orthodox say that adam, because he was in full connection with God, spiritually, metaphysically etc, he saw their metaphysical properties and knew them for what they were as i've been told. So that answered one of my personal questions i've had since middle school. Cause i always assumed the text meant like, Oh adams names the animals like we give names to identify the object just by Name and, to call and identify, so that helped me. But i would ask an orthodox priest personally who has an understanding of the text. Was my lesson i learned anyway.

Attached: 89c579654f576e0637be87c03dd1b4272a62ac8d2c83847b753286773158a070.jpg (2000x2000, 1.16M)

I really like this series on youtube by Walter Veith on creation. It's definitely worth the watch. Can't embed the playlist but here's a link
youtube.com/watch?v=1YMMKSx_R6c&list=PL13eE2x3qhPmDJCPm9F2cjckCUdUSubU1

The Biblical definition is animals upon the Earth (ground) and flying animals, with "the breath of life" (lungs) as having plants for food. The sea would have been pretty much the same as it is today. Air-breathing non-aquatic vertebrates would have been strictly herbivorous, although that quickly changed after the fall.
As for flightless birds, how is it a problem? Feathers are for more than just flight.

So in other words Adam saw the function they'd serve (insectivore, predator, prey, etc)?


So various forms of marine life were eating other marine life? That'd mean animal death existed before the fall, right?

Day 5 has birds (flying creatures) and fish, while day 6 has land animals and man. That'd mean either birds like the kiwi and elephant bird were originally flying creatures and went through a drastic shift in their appearance since the fall (only a few millennia if YEC), or were flightless land animals that merely resemble birds. And that's not even discussing penguins ans bats.

Attached: 1384862664_501cbb99b2_o-580x448.jpg (946x880 20.71 KB, 774.85K)

Also cetaceans, pinnipeds and sirenians, but those are kind of a given in this case I guess.

Attached: sea-lion1a (1)

Well, again im just a layman, still quite new, but he didn't see them in oh look prey predator, cause prior to the fall, there was no such a thing. As in the whole animal kingdom functioned differently. When i say what Adam saw what they were, the orthodox say that he saw them for what they were in relation to god, and Divine purpose. There's still many questions i have, but that's just what i've come across researching this, and it's hard to find an orthodox perspective cause protestants have done a bang up job, on this subject. And then there's the flood im still wondering about and how that relates to what is we now know as the animal kingdom etc.

Odd and a bit vague, but ok I get it.

I'd be wary with protties when it comes to this, for a number of reasons.

Not really. I think its just because we had incorruptible bodies and thus could not feel parasites, pain and so on, nor could the body take damage.
no creature is a parasite in reality, they all serve certain purpose.
I think we should always differentiate between animals and humans and discuss them in different context.

No one's posted the Kent Hovind creation seminars yet?

youtube.com/watch?v=shyI-aQaXD0
youtube.com/watch?v=nbqtPqnOA_c&t=1058s
youtube.com/watch?v=YrkYDzILgtA

Honestly i think i might personally get father rose's book on genesis, and early creation and man. Cause he's the only orthodox theologian i know that takes that perspective. So, im right now just barley even novice about this section of theology. I've been more focusing on Materialism, naturalism etc. Just cause that's so dyed into our current culture. And yea i know about the protestant, they usually end up making fools of themselves on this subject. Which was why i was so hesitant to tackle this subject. And there's Jay dyer which i know gets shilled here. But he critiques Darwinism, and evolution from a Philosophical, Metaphysical point of view which is what got me back into this topic, cause for the longest time i just thought i would be agnostic on these issues. Not much else i can help with friend hopefully a more Erudite Orthodox layman can help you out with this, cause im still on the unknown mostly about this.

Here's Mr. Dyers take on this subject. I actually liked this cause it compared all the different religions outlook on the creation of the world. Outlook of Death, etc. Hopefully this helps someone in the orthodox faith.

But at the same time, we have a responsibility unto them. We are to rule the earth, but also maintain it. The choices we make affect the world around us, in more ways than one.

Attached: chainofbeing.jpeg (736x1079, 244.89K)

People like him always came off as extremely standoffish, and that kinda rubs me the wrong way. I always thought civility was the best strategy, this "actively challenge them" seems less like a tactic of debate, and more of a show to put on for followers.

Attached: 89B86E11-0785-4095-B4F3-6DADA62B1C83.jpeg (260x194, 24.43K)

A true missing link, even in his own cause.

Matthew 24:37
But as the days of Noah were, jk boi there was no days of Noah, just a metaphor bro.

Evolution is retarded, it's totally improbable that random mutations stack up positively (99% of mutations are defective/neutral not positive) and are filtered by some undefined, unquantifiable, unobservable "natural selection" speciation process.

Imagine someone randomly inserted code into thousands of Windows 10 operating systems trying to run a difficult program; the majority of the new random code will be useless or will crash the systems. We are supposed to believe that over time this random insertion of code will change some Windows 10 systems to become not only improved (better at running a difficult program) but will also eventually change into Linux.

You realize even contemporary creationists accept the concept of natural selection right?

I suppose you think comparative anatomy is equivocal to comparing various artificial structures as well?

Species will carry both positive and negative heritable traits, there's no "natural selection" process that filters hereditary changes from merely phenotypic changes, and it doesn't even filter positive from negative traits, it's a blind and undefined process there's no "selection" happening. There's nothing quantifiable or observable about it.

It's an analogy involving complex programs operating in an environment, of of course life is far more complex than an OS, so it's even more absurd that random code inserted into our dna would magically stack up to confer not only benefits over time, but drastically change our species into another species. Absurd.

I'm curious as to how you came to the conclusion that any of the traits being selected for are positive, negative, or phenotypical in natute.

As long as there is no selective pressures (such as a changing environment or new predators) being put upon a population, those that have variations/mutations will most likely not be selected for, and thus the status quo is maintained.

That's the thing, it isn't. Existing code is either shuffled or slightly tweaked. However there are cases in which an outside force, such as a virus, can insert its code into ours, though this doesn't lead to very noticeable differences.

Also you implying this concept of rigidity, that if you were to change the slightest thing, the creature couldn't function. Organic systems have more plasticity, and are often able to cope with slight variations.

What is your definition of "drastic," and does this supposed absurdity extend to the animals as well?
Do you believe diversification doesn't occur, that life hasn't changed nor spread out since the creation, and that all creatures were created separately?

What of the giant ground sloths and armadillos? Do they merely resemble their modern counterparts due to a similar creator, or are they related via a common ancestor? Same extends to the ceratopsians and hominids, and pretty much anything else.

Attached: Hominid Havoc.jpg (822x1294 134.75 KB, 512.94K)

At most natural selection is nothing more than gene frequencies shifting back and forth, within one created kind, in light of some external pressure…. like the peppered moth story in the UK, but even that has many holes in it and doesn't involve "new" traits appearing and being selected for, but already existing traits having a slight advantage over another. And when the pollution cleared up the population of the whiter moths increased…
Small variations like this are fine. That's observable and makes sense. That's the extent of "natural selection".

There are no known examples of the types of purely random mutations necessary for large-scale evolutionary processes. Sure small scale adaptability (or negative adaption) can occur from a random process, but there is no evidence of large scale species to species mutations going on. And appealing to the "gigantic time horizon" to stack tiny, minute changes is not empirical.

The only rigidity I hold to is the rigidity of Kind/Specie, since there is no evidence of a mutagenic mechanism that can alter a species into another species.

Of course, within a narrow range of possibilities. Adaptions can be gained or lost, some populations can become better at breeding than others within a species. A tiger with bigger teeth is going to adapt better to his environment than one with weak and brittle teeth. And he'll pass on his "big teeth" genes at a higher rate than the brittle toothed tigers, sure. That's empirical and sensible. But if you say this implies that after thousands and thousands of years these small changes can turn a Dinosaur into a Bird then I'm going to reject that hypothesis because there's no evidence of it, it's not even empirical as far as I can tell…there's no mechanism to explain such a drastic transformation.


I'm not familiar with them, tell me what you think happened and the evidence for it. The giant sloths went extinct a long time ago, could they interbreed with armadillos?

That term has broadened quite a bit nowadays. Are you referring to the classic approach or the modern take?

And why not? Because the geologic record and molecular clocks of various animals sink your point? Or are you going to claim that those are made up or don't matter?

Well what do you mean by that? Is the basis mainly interbreeding, or is it something different for you?

Again, depends on what you mean by "drastic." We do find creatures within the fossil record that many creationists cannot readily assign as a bird or dinosaur. Take Zhenyuanlong for instance, the creature resembles a dromaeosaurid ("raptors"), yet has the impressions of wings and feathers. Due to the presence of feathers, AiG classified it as a bird, despite its many anatomical affinities towards the raptors. The point it: they can't tell where one ends or begins.

Well I could the ask the same about ground sloths mating with tree sloths, but that's another can of worms.

You're actually in the ball park about armadillos and sloths. Despite being unable to breed (I highly doubt they can even interbreed with others in their own families/orders), they still bear a very distinct set of characteristics, most notably their spinal joint articulation. In other words, despite their differences, these three major groups have traits that link them together.

Attached: cat-kinds-large (2)

Because it's not empirical. It's not observable, reproducible or even falsifiable. There's no actual mechanism to test that explains what's going it, simply saying "mutation + time + selection = new species" is void, that's barely a hypothesis.

Imagine Newton tried to explain the rotation of the moon around the earth by saying "a pulling force - a pushing force + time = rotation" he wouldn't be saying anything, barely a hypothesis, that's not quantifiable or empirical, but since he proposed the inverse-square law we have something empirical and quantifiable to measure and test.

This is just anecdotes and haphazard pattern recognition.

Speciation. The whole point of evolution is to explain the emergence of diverse species, instead it simply it states that species that are better at reproducing are better at reproducing, and mutations sometimes affect reproduction. Yes, ok. That's it. Where's the evidence of speciation?

Ok so the issue is vague. Why are you raising it?

...

Evolution is not empirically verifiable given the impossible time-horizon required involving imperceptible changes.
Adaption and selection occur, sure, but speciation does not.
Fossil record only demonstrates pre-existing diversity.
There has never been evidence that random mutations can accumulate to such a degree to change the DNA of a species into the DNA of another species. DNA changes within its own parameters (kind/specie).

Hybrid appearances don't prove anything, if you want to presuppose a common ancestor thats your belief, it's not empirical

Evolution is dumb trash almost on the level of calvinism, how can anyone believe this stuff?

Attached: Prehistoric_Giraffids_at_the_Tianjin_Natural_History_Museum.jpg (500x588 72.14 KB, 29.11K)

LOL

This is nonsense. Good luck with your non-biblical and also non-scientific hypothesis.

That's not evolution. That's mutation/adaption/genetic variation. If you think mutation is univocal to speciation you're absolutely confused. This is hilarious.

We already know DNA changes within its own parameters (species), sections get lost, sections get added, but it never goes from one species' genome into the genome of another species. This has never been observed.

...

I'm a YEC, but science isn't really an interest of mine. I just follow the Bible, I don't really care what the World says.

I was a hardcore atheist very into science. Moved to agnosticism. Then into theistic evolution. now theistic creationism.
Regarding the age of the earth I'm still doing research as well as the global flood.
But I'm very confident evolution is poor science, weak, and doesn't have an empirical foundation besides anecdotes and weak patterns.

Fall was cosmic catastrophe that was felt at all planes of existence. Earth before fall cannot be deducted from post-fall earth. But we can guess.
They probably eaten algas of some sort.
Post-fall development, never questioned by CYEC.
Bible and Catholic systemisation does not go by genetic similarity but by condition of being of given genus. According to such classification fowls are winged creatures, fishes are esentialy swimers, beastes are walkers, and crawling creatures are the rest such as lizards, snakes or insects. Bats are fowls, crocodiles are fish. Emus are birds but pinguins are fishes. Just like beavers.

that's just an intro, it doesn't actually engage the topic.

Unfortunately Zig Forums won't let me upload the full length. Oh well

Read "In the Beginning" by Walt Brown. A bit outdated, but there's good articles on his stuff in a lot of Christian scientific journals. My main problem with him is that he hasn't gotten it peer-reviewed yet, even by other creation scientists. But he provides a more solid model for Flood geology than many other YECs.

So you don't know, nor could you come to the conclusion that such a place existed going off of the evidence.

Considering the size of these animals, the entire ocean would have to be coated in it. That's not including other filter feeders either.

So speciation can occur? Thornbugs are part of a larger diverse group known as the treehoppers, each with a unique carapace shape.

Attached: Simia and Homo.jpg (2348x1481 1.7 MB, 553.01K)

Humans and apes are examples of analogous convergent evolution.

This book is required reading for this subject. Sadly, it's pretty expensive and only the first three chapters have been uploaded here creatio.orthodoxy.ru/english/rose_genesis/index.html

Attached: Genesis, Creation, and Early Man.png (318x472, 382.28K)

Here is Jeff Durbin interviewing a chemistry professor on the problems with materialism, the intractable problems with the Darwinian model, and general scientific arguments for creation.

vocaroo.com/i/s1pJQJ9i6hVN

I tried to embed this but Zig Forums doesn't allow clips of this size (about 1 hour long).

...

Yes, they talk about that. However the discussion is far broader than that, making a strong case for intelligent design.

I wonder if you can express your disagreement with the content, rather than deploying fallacies like an absolute retard?

this is what evolutionists actually believe

Attached: evolution_.jpg (420x630, 104.71K)

Attached: hqdefault.jpg (480x360, 5.76K)

...

I could not deduct the state of pre-fall earth. I could deduct that such place existed out of Benevolence of God and Free Will of Man. And I know that such place exist because God told me so in both public and private revelations.
Entire ocean is not covered in krill yet Great Whales are huge.
If they can mix they are the same kind (genus). Universe is inherently ordered (by God) anyway.
Not really.
And forget even more.

Attached: carnivore-skull-challenge (1)

...

Holy Spirit through Moses. Deny that and we will end here.
There were fewer whales since God created genus of Whale, not all of its subspecies.
That's implying that they would have to compete.
Post fall that is.
I mean that God created pre-whale and he developed according to his genus.
Birds are artificial classification in the first place. To classify animals by their habitat is easy.

Attached: Homo Baramin.jpg (900x630 123.68 KB, 106.52K)

...

...

Filtered.

Is there somewhere I can just read his points? I'd rather not have to sit through all this hooplah the host is going over. Maybe a transcript?

...

...

...

...

No buddy. For most of the animals in there(especially the bombardier beetle) you need ebvery oart to work perfectly and come all at the same time. If it evolved only part then it would die, the only way it can exist is if it were created

...

Also I'm curious to see your theological view for why an animal with such a devastating defense mechanism existed in a world which supposedly had no sin or physical death, er-go no predation so there would be no need for it.

So how do you get from a bacteria to a human without adding organs? Evolietion teaches every living thing grandpa was a bacteria

...

Also all animals will be vegetarian again in the millennial kingdom. Is the millennial kingdom just a metaphor?

...

>

That doesn't say he made them at the same time, just that they were both made.

What are some good sources on the Biblical timeline? I got brainwashed into accepting secular science and want to know the true history of the Earth now that I know it can't be billions of years old

Attached: Longevity-Chart-Adam-to-Joseph-1024x693.jpg (1024x693, 192.83K)

Incoming crazy talk..
What if God created reality flat and everything wasn't actually 100% physical? After all, we only perceive physicality after our brains interpret the senses we receive. With God, isn't everything spiritual in nature at its core though?
youtu.be/dDBFhM_ViqM?list=PLmiAycMDMUDPGSb40Ry8kKmTWUh4DCfwf&t=47

So God created heaven and earth. We're on earth, right? Can humans make it to heaven on their own? No. But we're taught that we're in outer space so wouldn't that put us floating in heaven technically? Giving us the way to travel there.
Think to the tower of babylon story as a metaphor.. man wanting to ascend to the heavens.. that's what the notion of outer space is meant to mentally instill in us. That man is already there on some level. The video below elaborates
youtu.be/N6DR9k3rPZQ?t=572

If you can tolerate heavy crazy talk & have an open mind.. or at least want a neat mental exercise and want to hear how the theory of a flat earth would actually work.. I recommend starting here:
youtu.be/zssD9UILTfw?list=PLmiAycMDMUDPGSb40Ry8kKmTWUh4DCfwf&t=1043

Attached: 1505829788181.jpg (1200x675 66.83 KB, 119.64K)

And blocked

Attached: lens sizes.jpg (800x3784 904.5 KB, 379.03K)

...

Could've said "male then female He created them" but it doesn't. It implies they were made at the same time.

Didn't he make woman from the rib of man? How could he make them at the same time?

The word translated as "rib" literally just means "side", and is in the context of Adam falling into a visionary trance.
So one possible interpretation is that Adam saw a vision of God cutting him in half, making a woman from one of his sides, and when he woke up God brought Eve (who existed before his vision) to him to be his companion.

Different accounts of the same event. What exactly it'd mean for a literal interpretation, I wouldn't know.


Reminds me of the old Greek idea of a soulmate.

Attached: main-qimg-dbb1e413898d03e5c531777d44c6aaf7-c.jpeg (553x306 61.88 KB, 91.99K)

Probably a case of borrowed anthropology on the part of the Greeks.