Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
That is an interesting perspective Lanakila. I often wonder why some Christians are so eager to take take interpretations of science an scripture that place them at such odds with one another. I still don't understand why the position of many Christians (that God created, the Bible is true, and that the science of evolution fills in some of the detail of what process God used to create) is so unacceptable and distasteful to people like you. I may never understand that. Your reasoning appears to be that evolution is contrary to Christianity "because I say so".
npetreley, who posts on this board also, has his reasons too - and they are that there is a "plain meaning of the text" of the scriptures. Unless you get down to fairly fine details, there is nothing in the text of Genesis that is incompatible with evolution, then it DOES become (as you claim it doesn't) a matter of how the text is interpreted. Why insist on the one the interpretation that puts you at odds with science?
__________________ Man should no more get tired of using his brain--if he is using it properly--than a fish should get tired of water.
By the way: Even though science may seem to conflict with your religion, and the fact that the same science has become universally accepted among the scientists and largely accepted among the educated public, these facts are not enough to turn science into a competing religion. It is the methodology that determines the nature of inquiry, not the conclusions.
The methodology of evolution is science. The conclusions are scientific ones about nature (not about the supernatural). They cannot rule out a supernatural event, nor can they explain one. To claim evolution is a religion because it reaches conclusions in areas where your religion also has reached conclusions - this is putting the cart before the horse - even if there is a "real" contradiction between scientific and religious conclusions.
__________________ Man should no more get tired of using his brain--if he is using it properly--than a fish should get tired of water.
Sorry for any confusion over the personal pronoun (you) in my two posts. I didn't make sense until later of which of the statements in your posts were your owns, and which were Johnson's. I will leave my replies as they stand, because I assume you agree with Johnson on this.
__________________ Man should no more get tired of using his brain--if he is using it properly--than a fish should get tired of water.
Gallup polls have consistently shown that approximately 45 percent of Americans believe that God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years (creationist); 40 percent believe man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process, including man's creation (theistic evolution); and ten percent believe man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, and God had no part in this process (Darwinist evolution).
That's pretty impressive, given that you don't normally get 85% of people agreeing that they believe in God.
Note that "guided" this process is a bit of a biased term, and hard to interpret. Does that mean "intelligent design", or does it just mean that God, being very very clever, is able to set up a process that will have the desired results?
Originally posted by LouisBooth "Of course I don't agree. Condsidering many creationists show extremely limited understanding of genetics and evolution"
Hmm..so ya think 1 out of every 2 americans has no knowledge of evoution or genetics?
I would guess it's higher than that; at least some people who accept the theory of evolution don't understand it.
Haven't you seen the recent headlines?
49% of 8th graders, asked whether the moon was always closer to earth, sometimes closer to the sun, or always closer to the sun, said that the moon was always closer to the earth.
Thus, 51% of them *DID NOT KNOW*.
So... claiming that *only* 50% of our population is wrong on a matter of basic science is hardly frightening; evolutionary theory is a *LOT* harder than the difference between 240,000 miles and 93,000,000 miles.
I think that creationism implies a serious misunderstanding, or rejection, of basic science. The Onion article about people trying to repeal the second law of thermodynamics addressed this beautifully, with a protester holding up a sign saying "I reject fundemental tenets of science, and I vote".
I am far from a professional scientist, but I at least learned enough science and math to be able to understand the initial questions. I have not yet seen a single creationist argument rooted in any kind of science that made much sense.
There is exactly one remotely reasonable reason to believe young-earth Creationism: It's what a literal reading of Genesis gives you.
Any other reason is just dishonest.
I happen not to believe Genesis to be literal, because I have a much easier time believing that God speaks in allegory sometimes, and tells the hard literal truth sometimes, than I do believing that God speaks the hard literal truth in the Bible, and lies to us with every fragment of creation.
Location: Nestled in the Gorgeous Montana Mountains
Posts: 8,653
Blessings: 34,985
Reps: 32,903 (power: 48)
Romans 1:19-22 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.
20. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
21. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.
22. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools
This scripture clearly teaches that the creation proves God's existence. There is a great book on this topic called Eternity In their Hearts by Don Richardson.
Originally posted by Lanakila Romans 1:19-22 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.
20. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
21. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.
22. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools
This scripture clearly teaches that the creation proves God's existence. There is a great book on this topic called Eternity In their Hearts by Don Richardson.
Perhaps, but creation isn't the same as creationISM, or evolution-denial
Originally posted by Jerry Smith
Perhaps, but creation isn't the same as creationISM, or evolution-denial
It all comes down to Adam.
Adam was created with free will. He had the ability to obey God in all things, but he chose to disobey. This led to his spiritual death and loss of free will and the fall, which was passed on to all of us. The end result is that we need Christ's redemption to get back into right relationship with God.
If we evolved, then there was no Adam with free will. God evolved us into what we are today, which is a people who lack the ability to obey God in all things. That makes it god's fault that we are disobedient. Christianity dissolves into the incompetence of god, not the responsibility of man.
Finally, it isn't just a matter of interpreting Genesis literally. There are many sections of the Bible that depend on a literal Adam to make sense. For example, Romans 5...
12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned-- 13(For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. 15 But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man's offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many. 16 And the gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned. For the judgment which came from one offense resulted in condemnation, but the free gift which came from many offenses resulted in justification. 17 For if by the one man's offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.)
18 Therefore, as through one man's offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man's righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. 19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man's obedience many will be made righteous.
20 Moreover the law entered that the offense might abound. But where sin abounded, grace abounded much more, 21 so that as sin reigned in death, even so grace might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
If we evolved, then there was no Adam with free will. God evolved us into what we are today, which is a people who lack the ability to obey God in all things.
My, what sweeping conclusions your draw.. If you didn't notice, there's a rather large logical leap from "If we evolved" to "then tehre was no Adam with free will"
Linear Mode
