- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Impressive support for Intelligent Design
Posted on 2/20/26 at 1:31 pm to VolSquatch
Posted on 2/20/26 at 1:31 pm to VolSquatch
quote:
Even in the creation story God doesn't just snap and create everything. He does pieces of daily throughout a week
On the timescale we’re talking about, let’s call that a distinction without a difference
quote:
he likely did build (and possibly is still building onto) his creation and improving it as he goes.
Somewhat related question, but why would anything created by God need improvement?
1
Posted on 2/20/26 at 1:32 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
faces a some major theological problems that puts the theory in conflict with what seems to be clear teaching from God.
What would those be? Because I don’t see it.
Your position seems to rest solely on literal translation of the narrative. Which, if that’s the basis of your point, there’s no reason to even discuss it.
Posted on 2/20/26 at 1:34 pm to Freauxzen
quote:
What made the star?
Not the desert god described in the Bible (the one that gets jealous and allows genocide, rape , slavery etc) . Thats for damn sure
Posted on 2/20/26 at 1:34 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
So…you’re one of the literal translation people. In no way could the creation narrative have been a parable or story to explain that God created the universe?
If he created a pile of ooze then zapped it... why not just say so?
quote:
If everything was created out of thin air in less than a week, how do we have evidence of life and natural processes that occurred millions/tens/hundreds of millions of years before Homo sapiens?
I haven't dug into ID in a while, I'll let someone else field that.
quote:
Genesis doesn’t mention the Neanderthals either, but we know they were around before us and during our early presence on earth.
A few points.. 1) Genesis isn't the only book. 2) The Bible ranges from 66 books to 77 books, one is even 81 books. 3) Just because the word neanderthal isn't mentioned doesn't necessarily mean anything.
Again, it's been some time since I've read ID, I really can't answer for how that's handled.
Posted on 2/20/26 at 1:41 pm to SallysHuman
quote:
he created a pile of ooze then zapped it... why not just say so?
I’m not sure a science textbook on the physics, chemistry, and biology of the history of life would have exactly been a page turner for a people that lived in tents and herded goats in the desert. Nor particularly persuasive. So “I created it” it was.
quote:
1) Genesis isn't the only book. 2) The Bible ranges from 66 books to 77 books, one is even 81 books. 3) Just because the word neanderthal isn't mentioned doesn't necessarily mean anything.
There’s no mention of any other hominids at all in the Bible. And yet they existed before humans and coexisted with humans, up to and including breeding. On which day were they created?
I don’t get why you would choose to put the entire creation and development of life into a six day box when it’s completely unnecessary to do so.
This post was edited on 2/20/26 at 1:42 pm
Posted on 2/20/26 at 1:41 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
On the timescale we’re talking about, let’s call that a distinction without a difference
I addressed the timescale in my comment, I think it's essentially irrelevant except for the fact that he didn't just do it all with the snap of his fingers, and rested afterward.
quote:
Somewhat related question, but why would anything created by God need improvement?
It wouldn't in theory, but other than humanity being created in his image, how do we really say one thing is "better" than something else? Examples of evolution we have more recent examples of are mostly small changes related to an altered environment moreso than "improving" anything necessarily.
But even larger leaps, let's use early crocodilians or even just early aquatic reptiles compared to what we see now, how do we really determine that one is "better" than the other? It's not, it's just different.
And what about kids born with disabilities? All are "perfect" per scripture.
I'm kind of thinking through this a bit as I'm typing because I think the subject is interesting. But I guess a TLDR is that you could build a house that is perfect when you built it but 3 kids into the future it's too small. It was still perfect when it was built, but that doesn't mean you can never alter it in the future.
Posted on 2/20/26 at 1:41 pm to Indefatigable
quote:A basic part of understanding the Bible is to understand what the type of writing is that you're reading, and that can be ascertained by the context. There's a reason why Christians can easily see that the story about the sower is a parable while the crucifixion is a historical account.
And nowhere in that Word does God or Jesus say that everything in the Bible or God’s teaching is literal. Hell, parables were an enormous part of Jesus’ teachings on earth.
Genesis is written in a narrative format, not a parable. There is no change in form between the story of creation and the story of Jacob and his sons moving to Egypt because of a famine. The only way to believe that the creation account is not literal is to assume a different conclusion before reading it, and then trying to make the story fit what you already believe. That's called eisegesis, or pushing your own understanding into the text, compared to exegesis, which is drawing your understanding from to the text.
The same alleged author of Genesis referenced back to the creation account in the giving of the 10 commandments, and used the literal 6 days as a reference point for observing the Sabbath. The Psalms, Isaiah, 1 Chronicles, Hosea, Micah, Jeremiah, and other books reference back to events of Genesis as literal history, whether referring to Adam, Noah and the flood, Abraham, or events surrounding them. The New Testament also treats Genesis as history.
Posted on 2/20/26 at 1:42 pm to VolSquatch
quote:
But I guess a TLDR is that you could build a house that is perfect when you built it but 3 kids into the future it's too small. It was still perfect when it was built, but that doesn't mean you can never alter it in the future.
Is God omniscient or not though?
He doesn’t seem like a dude who lacks foresight.
Posted on 2/20/26 at 1:43 pm to Decatur
quote:
According to the law of conservation of mass there is no creation or destruction of matter, only change. Might be hard for the human mind to wrap itself around it but that’s what science tells us.
I’d welcome someone to help me out if I’m getting this wrong.
I would say that an infinite causer, capable of creating matter when no matter exists, operates outside of the laws, which by the way, would have been created by the same causer.
The causer has to have always existed. If the causer at any point did not exist, what would bring the causer into existence?
Posted on 2/20/26 at 1:44 pm to tiggerfan02 2021
quote:
If anyone is interested in a good book that breaks down the case for intelligent design/creation and lays out the proof read "Why the Universe is the Way It Is" by Hugh Ross.
It is only about 135-140 pages, but it is crammed full of information with all the receipts. Highly recommend
Thanks, just ordered it.
Posted on 2/20/26 at 1:44 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
Genesis is written in a narrative format, not a parable. There is no change in form between the story of creation and the story of Jacob and his sons moving to Egypt because of a famine
Because it is a narrative. All of Genesis is written that way because it’s a story. Grounded and rooted in truth, but still a story.
I didn’t even know people tried to take it as 100% literal fact.
Posted on 2/20/26 at 1:46 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
He doesn’t seem like a dude who lacks foresight.
If free will exists then we can alter his creation. He gave us dominion over it. So if we have true free will he might be able to see all possibilities but not which one specifically will occur.
Posted on 2/20/26 at 1:48 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
I’m not sure a science textbook on the physics, chemistry, and biology of the history of life would have exactly been a page turner for a people that lived in tents and herded goats in the desert. Nor particularly persuasive. So “I created it” it was.
I don't agree with this.. comes off as God gaslighting his creation and I just can't buy that.
quote:
There’s no mention of any other hominids at all in the Bible. And yet they existed before humans and coexisted with humans, up to and including breeding. On which day were they created?
Obviously they were created on the 6th day. Some subscribe to a double creation. Anywho, if they were created, it'd be on the sixth day.
quote:
I don’t get why you would choose to put the entire creation and development of life into a six day box when it’s completely unnecessary to do so.
God created time, God exists outside of the confines of time, with that in mind, it is certainly possible.
Posted on 2/20/26 at 1:50 pm to Indefatigable
quote:The two major ones are in regards to sin/death, and federal headship, particularly in regard to covenant guilt.
What would those be? Because I don’t see it.
First, we're told that death came through (Adam's) sin. If there was even a literal Adam (theistic evolutionists don't always grant this), he would have come about millions of years after death began, so death wouldn't be a result of sin, but a natural consequence of existing.
Second, Jesus is called the second Adam. This is in reference to covenantal federalism, where Adam is the "head" of mankind, and mankind is declared guilty by God due to Adam's representative sin. Jesus becomes the "head" of His Church, where those who trust in Him inherit His righteousness through declaration, as their new representative.
If there is no literal Adam, there is no literal original sin, and there is no literal original guilt for his sin. Therefore, it removes the argument made that Christ is our representative in righteousness. It removes the covenant of works made with Adam, and therefore removes the need for the covenant of grace.
Similarly, if Jesus is compared to Adam in this regard, it would make no sense to compare Jesus to a fictional character if the argument is to persuade people of faith in the real God-man, Jesus.
Lastly, and as I've already alluded to, it makes nonsense of Jesus' support for marriage by referencing an event that didn't happen (joining of Adam and Eve at creation). Jesus could have made up a new parable that was more applicable if He knew the creation narrative was merely a parable, but He treated it like a historical account because that's how it was viewed by the Jews, and because it was historical: Jesus as the eternal God was there at creation.
quote:There may be no desire to discuss it from your perspective, but there's plenty of reason to discuss the truth.
Your position seems to rest solely on literal translation of the narrative. Which, if that’s the basis of your point, there’s no reason to even discuss it.
This post was edited on 2/21/26 at 9:56 am
Posted on 2/20/26 at 1:52 pm to Indefatigable
quote:Again, if you take Genesis 1 as a non-literal story, absent historical reality, like a parable, there's no reason to take any of Genesis as anything but a non-literal story that is absent historical reality.
Because it is a narrative. All of Genesis is written that way because it’s a story. Grounded and rooted in truth, but still a story.
I didn’t even know people tried to take it as 100% literal fact.
The Jews didn't treat it that way, the New Testament writers didn't treat it that way, and Jesus didn't treat it that way.
Who treats it that way? Modern atheists and theists who want the Bible to conform to the scientific consensus. Or in other words, those who want to make the Bible fit a non-biblical narrative.
Posted on 2/20/26 at 1:53 pm to geoag58
quote:
I would say that an infinite causer, capable of creating matter when no matter exists, operates outside of the laws, which by the way, would have been created by the same causer.
The causer has to have always existed. If the causer at any point did not exist, what would bring the causer into existence?
I think this is Aquinas? I’m not well read on him but I think this may the gist of the First Mover. My sense is that if we strip away a lot of the dogma it may not be much different than what we refer to as the laws/constants of nature.
Posted on 2/20/26 at 1:56 pm to Mid Iowa Tiger
quote:
comfort themselves with the thought of no accountability for their actions.
Exactly.
This is why the left wants church minimized or completely destroyed.
If you can commit evil with no consequences, like murdering babies, then all is well
Posted on 2/20/26 at 2:00 pm to RebelExpress38
quote:
Some axons had coiled themselves into tight whorls for completely unknown reasons.
Sounds like they isolated either the cause or effect of liberal extremism.
Posted on 2/20/26 at 2:10 pm to Decatur
quote:
Versus someone snapping their fingers and everything appeared in seven days ?
It was a booming voice, not a finger snap. And define "seven days", as that time frame could have spanned millions of centuries depending on the speed of earth's rotation.
You can mock creation all you want, but life didn't just appear by accident. You should be thankful for the existence given to us, no matter how short and insignificant. It's still ours.
Trillions of light-years worth of universal mapping and not one single hint that "life as we know it" exists anywhere other than on this rock. Flawed and imperfect as the inhabitants of this world may be, we are infinitely unique and our existence is truly miraculous.
Posted on 2/20/26 at 2:12 pm to TigerAxeOK
quote:
And define "seven days", as that time frame could have spanned millions of centuries depending on the speed of earth's rotation.
Those on this thread who take Genesis literally would say that you’re being ridiculous.
quote:
You can mock creation all you want, but life didn't just appear by accident.
Questioning the Biblical account isn’t mocking creation.
Page 5 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News