So I saw something that totally shed new light on Creationism to me. Actually every Christian believes in a form of "Youth Earth Type" creationism. The first example is simply the first miracle that Jesus performed - He turned water into wine. Wine is something that is aged, and appears as it is aged. If you gave that wine to a "scientist" to analyze, they would say this had been produced around 2 years ago or something. But Jesus produced it right then and there, with the appearance it was old, but it wasn't. Literally every Christian believes this. Same with the the loaves of fish and bread, etc.
This is actually something even an atheist would presume God or even just some magical being could do - produce something out of thin air. If say I told you that someone said some words and the out of thin air produced a fish out of nowhere, would you be like…"Hmm really? Let me see that fish?" So I give you the fish and you're like "Liar! This fish is clearly 2 years old!". Like that in no way disproves that the person made that fish appear from nothing.
I mean does anyone doubt Jesus could have said, "Tree, appear!" and a big tree would appear? Would you say no that's impossible cause the Tree looks like 26 years old? I'm sure that Tree would have tree rings around it indicating it's age and stuff too… so what right?
Now considering that basically every Church Father truly did believe that the days of creation were literal, like a miracle, 6 days (or shorter, like with St. Augustine), and even St. Thomas Aquinas saying it's literally 6 days, despite pagans and other people (even until recently) thought that the Universe was Eternal - why is this so hard to believe that God just created a world like bam! Like he booted up a VM image or something.
In addition, the whole idea of "Dark Matter" seems to actually bolster the idea that the Big Bang theory is nonsense. They still have literally no idea what this is, and have to include it in order to make it plausible. It's actually surprising, since they come at it from a completely dogmatic stance that there is no God and no supernatural forces, they're sort of forced into a corner like this.
Now I do have some questions though - namely with the appearance of what seems to be Dinosaur bones (is this Leviathan etc?) and what appears to be sub-Human type skeletons. Any explanation for those and how it fits into a more literal view of Genesis? Thanks!
Evolution is a process that's still occuring. So in a way, the skeletons would be the same as the rings of the tree.
John Reed
Let's say we don't accept macro evolution either. Any other explanations? (I think macro evolution causes some issues with Adam and Eve and other things)
Anthony Martinez
God put them there as some form of test, or esoteric Book of Enoch-like pre Adam and Eve scenarios.
Jose Campbell
While I know that's the common YEC explanation, it just doesn't seem artistic or beautiful enough. The earth being young does sound super beautiful to me, for reasons I can explain later, but in short that well there was not that long between the beginning of the world, Christ and then end of the world. In addition, while any length of the existence of the world (which is finite) compared to the afterlife (infinite) is negligible, it does matter for points within the finite space itself, when certain keypoints happen.
God is all about creating things beautifully, so you know if there was 200,000 years of humans running around, and then around 2000 years of post Christ, it just seems pretty strange. Or if say the world ends after another 200,000 years, it seems bizarre that people after 200,000 years, given how short are collective memory and degradation of information is in general, to have to remember one event that happened 200,000 years ago (if the coming of Christ was that far along). It also makes it seem extremely distant and impersonal in a sense, and just not all that beautiful.
That's just my estimation and all, and my feelings so far, but just wondering if again anyone had some theories on the so-called fossils, apart from the YEC stories about they being tests.
I have heard that they are being poorly represented and are not actually skeletons of dinos, or of pre-humanoids, but wondering if anyone here has done some research on this topic.
Jackson Phillips
You honestly shouldn't do theology on the basis of beauty.
Lincoln Richardson
Nah, actually I think it's the best way to do it, but I understand if you don't want to. Anyways not really the topic of it. Otherwise this will just derail into another topic.
Easton Carter
What we know of science could just be allegories of something deeper.
Jayden Morris
Why is this so hard? Death is also THE end to science, the basis of our faith is rising from the grave, if you believe in the consensus of learned individuals of academia (most of whom are of the synagogue of satan) over the words of your God then what good is your faith?
Aaron Barnes
Read it again then you'll realize that the YEC renders the text contradictory because the sequences of creation, and doesn't explain where Cain's wife came from.
You're right on that, but Cain's wife was actually a sister of his. 100 and something years went by after the birth of Cain and Abel. Its a Dogma of faith that all humans that ever lived came from Adam.
Oliver Johnson
It is very, very rare for the OT to mention daughters. The "begats" are almost always father to son(s). Eve didn't even have a name until after the fall. Until then, she was just "the woman". Adam could have had 2 dozen daughters and not one would be named.
Nathan Davis
I refuse to believe humanity is the result of mass incest. There were many people of many humanish tribes long before 6000 years ago.
Ian Martin
What do you base this on?
Jaxon Cox
Incest is bad because it accelerates the buildup of genetic defects. But what if I told you Adam and Eve had no genetic defects?
Judging the fact that Genesis chapter 1 focuses on Creation as a whole while chapter 2 is about the creation of Eden afterwords (due to the different order of event of creation), we could speculate the origin of man in 1:26-28 was different from Adam in 2:7 as a two distinct happenings. (What's also interesting is that the former man had the role of dominating the animals meanwhile the latter was an agriculturist. Like the comparison of Cain and Abel) If that's the case, then Cain's wife may have originated from the "first men" of Genesis 1:26-28. Then again, it's more probable for the author of Genesis to support >>a00e37's reasoning.
Landon Sullivan
Actually we can't. The man Genesis refers to is Adam. That can be know by comparing the words in the original language or something so I've heard. And also Pius XII in Humanis Genaris confirms that the bible is actually referring to the literal Adam and other interpretations aren't allowed in the Catholic Church.
Hudson Torres
Then the catholic church is forever wrong.
Samuel Scott
Yes, but not this time
Jaxson Fisher
I bring this up every time someone brings up the incest argument, and it's almost always ignored.
Easton Green
Because it’s a dumb argument. It means there must have been serious genetic damage done for their descendants to eventually become tiggers. Having to keep patching up holes like this to fill all the logical inconsistencies is the telltale sign of a lie.
Dominic Johnson
Incest actually does explain how "tiggers" could have developed so rapidly, especially if they were to miss out on the anti-incest stopgag around Moses' time. Incest + thousands of years + population isolation + rapid generational cycle + tropical environment = tiggers
Jaxon Sanders
...
Isaac Sanchez
There were tiggers during Jeremiah’s time so they would’ve had to evolve within 3500 years after Adam and Eve. That’s a fairly short amount of time for such extreme genetic deviation. Maybe demonic powers at play could explain the acceleration. Maybe that’s why Africa is filled with satanic witchcraft and tiggers are so sinful. It’s disturbing to think about because that would make them literal LOTR orcs.
I don't have the slightest clue what Mormans believe. I was just entertaining how the silly creationist theories could be possible.
Nathaniel Lopez
was poligamy a thing in genesis times? And given they lived hundred's of years it could mean a 700yo man taking his 60th 16yo virgin qt wife, a model that could help explain the rapid/unusual diversification? Or am I just being silly and there's no logic to that thought?
Brody Young
Yes. Hell even king David had several wives and that's way after genesis. I don't know if current models would allow it. But biology is a rapid changing science. The 19th century biology is laughable so I imagine 21dt century biology is gonna look stupid to 22nd century humans.
Alexander Garcia
Yes, polygamy was a thing and it served its purpose. You see, being a woman was hard back in biblical times. Most couldn't fend for themselves. Women out numbered men. Which means not every woman gets a husband. The ones that were husbandless were either neglected or forced into prostitution in order for them to survive.
Polygamy solves this issue by allowing a man to marry the women that would go husbandless. Keeping said women out of prostitution, their bellies full, and a roof over their head. This also had the added benefit of allowing the population increase exponentially.
Eventually civilization evolved enough where polygamy had become obsolete and humans can go back to the system of marriage God orginally intended for humans monogamy
Draw of "luck"? Look at Ptolemaic Dynasty of egypt: the essentially "weeded" out "bad" genes such that brother-sister-incest-pharaoh didn't produce "inbred" offsprings. its about probability, really. also, factor epigenetics, it further "perturbs" the probability
Angel Davis
My theory was "save-and-load". when you play historical grand strategy games, you "load" a file. on a whim, you create a "world" thats thousands years old, even though it was loaded in "few minutes" irl. such that God's "loading time" was "Day" as per Genesis, but the "actual, "scientific"" time is millions, billions, etc. It sounded pretty reasonable, but I havent talked about this subject with anyone irl.
Elijah Peterson
Fallen angels were corrupting all flesh on the earth via their offspring, which may involve time travel.
Their main goal was to counterfeit the imago dei as a progression of blood from ape to man so that mankind will become a slave race that denies God.
Ayden Parker
I swear everyone has their own nephilim fanfic at this point. Probably jewish subversion since jews love the book of Enoch so much.
Nicholas Barnes
You know the domesticated Fox was bred in only 20 years? Different phenotypes, behavior, and skull shape from the wild fox.
Julian Powell
Thanks for this m8, I was aware and wasn't really asking for it's justification though, more asking if it was a thing in Genesis times (as opposed to David's for e.g.) when human's were first being fruitful and muliplying and diversifying. I ask becuse There was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Eve, Tracy, Stacy and Colette. Did the patriarchs have multiple wives? I remember Abraham I think had a son by his servent rather than wife iirc? (Don't know my OT well yet) which isn't the same I don't think is it.
Jack Foster
Hagar and Sarah that's it
Jonathan Torres
This is what intense selective pressure does. Also consider that back then in the days of Noah, humans were extremely collectivistic, which itself can act as another mode of intense selective pressure by placing societal conditions that favor certain attributes in a sort of negative feedback loop kind of thing - you want to have sex with people that have this trait because it's socially encouraged, and it gets more socially encouraged because your parents had sex for that reason.
Tigger traits are traits that could easily have been the result of such a selective spiral. Smart tiggers are nails that stick up so they get the hammer. Inbreeding and social hierarchy jockeying spiral into hyper aggression (see Arabs for another example) and a tendency for muscular development that favors appearance over substance (hence why tiggers can get so big so fast when working out, but they crumple like paper tigers in a fight).
Nathaniel James
Kent Hovind has answers for pretty much any question related to creationism, I suggest looking up his channel on YT.
Ryan Taylor
Dino bones were only found around the 1900 AD, but don't question it otherwise you're crazy.
Matthew Allen
I love Zig Forums
Luke Gomez
Species to species evolution is still unproven. Carbon dating is horribly inaccurate. Fossils are formed quickly, not over hundreds of years. There's a place in England that fossilizes teddy bears in a matter of months. Marco Polo recorded seeing "dragons" or "serpents."
