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.
(Gen 2:7), "the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being."
Creationism is full of logical holes and assumptions based on ideological grounds.
So is evolution.
It limits God to an interpretation not based in reality. Why is it not based in reality? Because the scientific data does not support it.
What you are doing is in fact imposing your worldly views on God, and getting him to fit into that box.
Science itself allows the experiment to dictate the results. But creationists turn this on its head.They know the answer. They are simply trying to make the experiment fit into their preconceived view of reality.
No argument there, however so does the evolutionist. He has a prior commitment to materialism.
Evidence cannot speak for itself, it is always interpreted through a framework. The creationist has his framework, the evolutionist has a contrasting one.
But it is NOT a scientific document. Let me repeat that. THE BIBLE IS NOT A SCIENTIFIC DOCUMENT.
We know, and I have never heard anybody say that it is.
One of creationists main focuses are human evolution
.
Incorrect, the main focus by a creationist is the word of God.
Evolution is the Athiests strongest weapon against us, so of course the creationist is entitled to defend himself.
Even the bible says (Gen 2:7), "the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being."
I like that, its a great point ! I have never heard an evolutionist bring that up before (to be honest i never considered the atheist clever enough to pick up on that point)
If you are a Christian and questioning whether you can believe in God and evolution, you can!
I agree wholeheartedly. If one believes in Jesus Christ The origins of life argument is moot. On the day of judgment JC is not going to hand us a questionnaire, with two boxes, Evolution and Creation, with the instructions
"Tick One" It is what is in our heart that matters.
However it remains my opinion that the Creation viewpoint makes so much more sense of the whole redemption thing to me, once I really began to study in depth.
i suppose many people would argure that I was indoctrinated. Sure, if its possible to indoctrinate oneself.
__________________ loud graphical signatures are against my religion.
What you are doing is in fact imposing your worldly views on God, and getting him to fit into that box.
As do the creationists, they just claim their personal interpretations are "truth", a priori.
No argument there, however so does the evolutionist. He has a prior commitment to materialism.
Evidence cannot speak for itself, it is always interpreted through a framework. The creationist has his framework, the evolutionist has a contrasting one.
Even so, the quality of the resulting interpretations are quite different from each other.
We know, and I have never heard anybody say that it is.
Then why the tendency to base entire creation science theories on a single person's interpretation of a single verse?
I like that, its a great point ! I have never heard an evolutionist bring that up before (to be honest i never considered the atheist clever enough to pick up on that point)
You'd be surprised, they're quite aware of that - it usually gets raised (and ignored) when creationists suggest that abiogenesis is a silly idea. Massive irony abounds....
I agree wholeheartedly. If one believes in Jesus Christ The origins of life argument is moot. On the day of judgment JC is not going to hand us a questionnaire, with two boxes, Evolution and Creation, with the instructions
"Tick One" It is what is in our heart that matters.
Definitely agreed on that one...
__________________ ____________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't we 'copying errors'?
'Mutants' from the ocean?
God wouldn't put something into operation that relied on 'copying errors'.
Technically it's not an "error" if it made our species better for it. If God wouldn't put something into operation that relied on "copying errors" he wouldn't curse all of creation for two people's mistakes either.
__________________ Slug's 1st Law of YECism- Genesis 1-9 must be interpreted literally. Slug's 2nd Law of YECism- Any other verses can be interpreted liberally to support the 1st Law. Slug's 3rd Law of YECism- Make up any extra-Biblical claim, no matter how wild, to wave-away evidence in violation of the 1st Law.
"If God sent a wind from space, and blew waters off the surface, for example, the waters would go down. Just as if you take a cup full of water over a sink, and blow hard on it, a lot will go out of the cup. Elementary." -dad ^This statement nullifies his own argument by comparing a "present state" event to a "past state" event!
I have to disagree. Many of my biology/geology/etc professors accepted evolution but were Christian. They were Catholic, Methodist, Episcopalian, and Presbyterian. None were Baptist.
I'm not saying that there do not exist theistic evolutionist Christians. (In fact, many do.)
But I don't think the doctrines of these religions are compatible with natural history, at least when rather mainstream Christianity is considered. I'd be interested in hearing the views of your professors, but I doubt they'd sit down and chat with little old me. So far, I haven't seen someone describe how evolution and original sin can fit together well.
It doesn't necessarily have to be "original sin". It depends on how you interpret Genesis.
It never actually states that nothing died before the fall. Adam and Eve were immortal only because they ate from the Tree of Life. If nothing else ate from it, they would die.
It was called "perfect" either. It was called "good" or "very good".
True. I make the mistake of calling it perfect often when it does not say perfect. I've never learned what the original language uses for that part. It seems odd to me that a god that is considered "perfect" would make a non-perfect system right from the start, though...
When I discuss this with Christians, most say that things did not die before the fall, because death is due to sin. Most tell me that God is benevolent, a "god of the living", and that suffering and death are due to sin.
If one disagrees with this view and feels that god created a world in which death and pain are a natural state of things, I'd be interested in hearing their views.
-Lyn
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
I think evolution and some forms of theism are compatible, but not evolution and Christianity.
Christianity relies on the concept of original sin.
Original sin is not an essential of the Christian faith. Paul lays out the essentials, 'things of first importance', in 1 Cor 15 from v3 and doesn't talk about 'original sin'.
Evolution shows that creatures suffered and died before mankind was ever around, which means the world was never perfect unless perfection somehow includes a lot of suffering and death.
Except Genesis 1 doesn't describe the world as perfect. The words used in the original Hebrew for 'good' and 'very good' simply convey the idea of God taking pleasure in what he created. But we know that some folk round here aren't interested in anything outside the good old King Jimmy version.
__________________
Give me Scotland or I die - John Knox
A mathematician confided
That a Möbius band is one-sided,
And you'll get quite a laugh,
If you cut one in half,
For it stays in one piece when divided!
I don't see why even creationists couldn't take that 'good' passage and run with it. Perhaps (given God the Creator) God understood that a 'perfect' system would be stagnant - nothing new could ever happen, nothing new could ever be born, everything would just be a repeating perfection. Which might be pretty, but perhaps not very satisfying to a Creative Being.
But if God made the universe to be 'good', perhaps 'good' meant "It will do what I want it to do, sustain itself, grow, change, new things will emerge".
--- And I thank your King James VI for being obedient to God's call for a new Translation.
Sproul et al did a better job being obedient to their call with the ESV
__________________
Give me Scotland or I die - John Knox
A mathematician confided
That a Möbius band is one-sided,
And you'll get quite a laugh,
If you cut one in half,
For it stays in one piece when divided!
So far, I haven't seen someone describe how evolution and original sin can fit together well. 
--- And I thank your King James VI for being obedient to God's call for a new Translation. 
Linear Mode
