Posted on 01/16/2013 4:41:13 PM PST by EveningStar
For Zack Kopplin, it all started back in 2008 with the passing of the Louisiana Science Education Act. The bill made it considerably easier for teachers to introduce creationist textbooks into the classroom. Outraged, he wrote a research paper about it for a high school English class. Nearly five years later, the 19-year-old Kopplin has become one of the fiercest — and most feared — advocates for education reform in Louisiana. We recently spoke to him to learn more about how he's making a difference.
(Excerpt) Read more at io9.com ...
Creationism is not a scientific theory it is a religious belief.
Evolution is a religion embraced by atheists and and s disproven by one simple fact: one genus or species cannot procreate with another to create a truly new species.
It may be..............
Seldom, indeed, is it that I find three of my esteemed and beloved siblings in Christ in disagreement with me on so fundamental point as to whether ex nihilo creation was -- or was not -- uniquely confined to "the creation week".
(Point of distinction: I said, "was not", rather than "could not be" ...)
~~~~~~~~~~~
Therefore, I must re-examine my position and ask myself a few questions:
While I cogitate on these questions -- and (re)-search Scripture for answers -- I hand them to you, my Sisters and Brothers in Christ, so that you can be ready to deal with whatever conclusions I reach...
~~~~~~~~
For those who have access to it, I refer you to
Schroeder, Gerald L., Genesis and the Big Bang -- specifically the chapter, "THE SOUL OF LIFE", PP 149-152.
~~~~~~~~~~
FWIW, marron my discussion of "created" vs "formed" was not nearly so much a disagreement with you as it was intended to be a lead-in to discussion of a couple of points I raised in my (mostly ignored) #143... But, I was "blindsided" into this "sidetrack" by my esteemed and beloved Sisters... ;-)
Yet, in all of this, my intended focus remains on the subject of this thread: "evolution vs creation"...
Evolution is not speciation. Two different species can produce fertile offspring. And that isn’t how new species come about. Nobody but you seems to think that the theory proposes that the way to get a fox is to interbreed a coyote and a weasel or some such bit of idiocy.
Sorry I don’t buy the Evolution theory. Too many holes in it. Adaptation yes. Evolution no.
The only real life example I can think of for evolution is dog-breeding
How can you change chjaracteristics of a dog over hundreds of years of breeding, but you still have a DOG DNA
Selective breeding can bring out characteristics, but not change DNA from dog DNA to cat DNA (or anything else)
If I had to pick instances of possible ex nihilo events in the Bible other than creation week, I’d go with these:
water to wine
multiplying loaves and fishes
healing any leper insofar as there is the assumption that any missing body parts were restored.
widow’s oil multiplied
Aaron’s rod becoming serpent
water becoming blood (depending on if that means “red” or “blood”)
I don’t consider dog breeding as evolution. What the evolutionists claim is that one species evolved into another ( if you look at it in it’s whole context). Dog breeding would be more similar to adaptation IMHO of course.
What mechanism do you propose accomplishes this adaptation? For example, a strain of e.coli started from a single cell adapted to be able to metabolize citric acid. How do you suppose this happened? What scientific theory best explains the evidence?
Breeding of dogs would be a great example of evolution fast-track because you are not randomly hoping for changes, you are purposely trying to direct those changes. The infinite number of random chance possibilities have been eliminated- but after thousands of years you still have a dog.
DNA changes by random selection over millions of years seems possible but highly improbably, to me. But it is only a theory anyway.
Ah, but one genus, humans, CAN bring into existence organisms which have never (as far as we know anyway) existed before we humans manipulated DNA to bring this new thing into existence. It is becoming all too common in agriculture ... and perhaps eventually in the animal kingdom, too?
I suggested that a new soul is not formed from a previous one (reorganization of energy/matter space/time) - but rather is a new creation that God has allowed us to be a part of, on the material side, the reorganizing side, procreation.
I also suggested that knowledge (information content) such as art, literature, scientific theories can be "created" by man. But I withdraw that suggestion because they are not ex nihilo since, at the very minimum, creatures and successful communication must pre-exist their coming into existence in the knowledge base.
The operative part, IMHO, is this:
8. Does God perform a new act of ex nihilo creation every time a human is born? Every puppy? Every seed that germinates? Every microbe that undergoes mitosis?
Indeed, the physical body seems first relevant to me in God’s covering Adam and Eve’s shame with coats made of skins:
Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them. – Genesis 3:21
And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission. – Hebrews 9:22
Concerning the spiritual body, Jewish mystics point to the Hebrew words nephesh, neshama and ruach in Scripture used to describe the soul/mind/spirit.
More specifically, nephesh is the ordinary soul which all living creatures have (Genesis 1) and is returned to the earth upon death.
And neshama as you pointed out, is the breath of God which Adam received in Genesis 2 whereby he became a living soul.
Further, according to the mystics, the ruach is the soul pivot whereby the man chooses to be Godly-minded (neshama) or earthly-minded (nephesh.) That choosing parallels Romans 8.
And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost. – John 1:33
In that view, everything returns to the earth at death and new epiphenomenons begin at birth or conception.
But the Scripture speaks of creation being mindful:
Conversely then, the living souls which have ruach (choice) and/or neshama (breath of God) would "phase shift" (if P.S. Wesson is right) and continue onwards "in" the creation past the death of the physical body.
Moreover, we creatures called Christian being indwelled by ruach Elohim already exist "beyond" anything physical at all (including a phase shift):
But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. - Romans 8:1-9
What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost [which is] in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? - I Corinthians 6:19
God's Name is I AM.
Thanks for your insights, Sister A-G. As you say, all of those I mentioned are possibly explained elsewise. I suggested that in that all those were only possible examples of ex nihilo, imo.
You explain that they could be a formation from something else. That is entirely possible.
However, it is not necessarily so. Since already baked bread and already cooked fish does not procreate, we have baskets of bread and fish instead of a few of each.
If I have one marble and suddenly have a half gallon of marbles, then I either found all my marbles (AT LAST! :>) or, my marbles procreated, or marbles just kept appearing.
It seems the mass of marbles may have multiplied, and mass can neither be created nor destroyed, so at least it’s a possibility, but Perhaps I’ve lost my marbles.
AGAIN.
:>)
(”Could you help me find them?” he asked the nice young lady. “Of course, Sir,” she replied and helpfully asked “Where were they last you saw them?” Hanging his head, he mumbled, “In a crevo discussion.” Shaking her head, the lady took his hand and gently inquired, “First, tell me your name...and what date do you think it is.”)
Indeed, the point about the multiplication of loaves and fishes is well taken. That may indeed be ex nihilo.
I have the sneaky intuition that the gallon of marbles where moments before there was only one may be a manifestation of a temporal reality which may be manipulated by one of ‘superior knowledge’ of same ... and thus the gallon marbles are ‘collected’ from temporal linear realities rather than created from ‘no thing before’. Even thoughts have some for of temporal and spatial reality, or so I am led to believe. The key is finding a way to define/express the dimensional variables in a new fashion which allows for finding the ‘spatio-temporal limits’.
Ah, but one genus, humans, CAN bring into existence organisms which have never (as far as we know anyway) existed before we humans manipulated DNA to bring this new thing into existence. It is becoming all too common in agriculture ... and perhaps eventually in the animal kingdom, too?
Man has been interbreeding dogs and crops for eons. This is nothing new. But to creat life. No. Man can only manipulate what he has to work with. He cannot create matter from nothing any more than he can create a new life form. But child’s play for God:
http://www.getyourowndirt.com/
I didn't read any of the replies as particularly a disagreement so much as a continuation of the discussion started in 143, trying to draw some distinctions that I did not make, between “ex nihilo” events and divine interventions that do not (apparently) generate something from nothing but rather redirect or choreograph events. The latter might fall under your “formation” heading.
One question is whether the “big bang” was a single explosion that carried within it the basic formula from which everything we see has unfolded, or was it rather more like the opening of a valve from which a steady stream is emitted (though still with those same basic formula governing physical behavior). I couldn't even begin to answer that kind of question.
My belief is that “creation” is a fundamental element in God's essence, like love, it is in part who he is. Furthermore that, since we are made in his image, it is a fundamental part of who we are. And to push my line of reasoning a bit further, that it is an important part of why he created us; first, because thats what he does, but more as a way of furthering the process of creation. We are tools who are intended to join in creation.
Its important to notice that parts of the process are mechanical, and are predictable, and parts of it have been given independent intellect and will which adds an element of spontaneity to the process. This seems to be by design. Rather than a universe of telephone poles he seems to prefer forests of unique trees whose final shape is not entirely predictable or controlled.
He can work with that kind of uncertainty the way a sailor uses winds he doesn't control to go to a destination he does control. He doesn't need to control everything to remain in control of everything.
Most people picture heaven as a kind of static place but I don't. If creation is, as I say, fundamental to God's nature then it continues today and on into eternity. We have roles to play and will continue to have roles to play on into eternity. I could be wrong, but I hope to find out (and hope to see you all when we get to the other side).
With this, I have batted the ball back over the net. I look forward to the responses.
I cherish you as a Brother in Christ, and thank you for your service for all of us! A big USAF salute to you and all your brother Chaplains! IMO, you are the "glue" that holds our military forces together when times really get tough!
~~~~~~~~~
All of your examples/instances consist of manipulation of objects / materials that already existed here on earth, of materials created at the initial (only?) ex nihilo event -- to change them into recognizable materials / objects that had already existed here on Earth. IOW, one created thing was changed in extent or into another created form. Some even may incorporate transmutation of one material into another.
As a physical chemist, I consider your cited items to be instances of what I think of as "Class one (1) maintenance miracles" -- as I described in my #190 0n this thread:
But, personal experience has proved to me that He, on occasion, does directly intervene in the progress of His creation. There are instances where He, IMHO, "puts things back on plan" by overruling his own physical laws and making adjustments that ignore those laws. We believers call those events, "miracles"...
Transmutation (the goal of ancient alchemists) is a known and demonstrated class of phenomena -- and is routinely observed in natural processes: nuclear fission and nuclear fusion. What I find particuarly "miraculous" about the items you cited is that they occurred with no reported release or consumption of excess energy!! Can you say, "putting E - MC2 on hold"?
Bottom line: "Miracles" -- most certainly. "Ex nihilo creation" -- IMHO, no.
Again, Thank You!!
Whatever label we put on your examples, none but our Creator God could have accomplished them as observed. IMO, There is no more obvious -- publicly witnessed and documented -- proof of the deity of our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, than His miracles.
To Him be all the praise and glory!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.