The Full Spectrum of Christian Belief on Origins - where are you?

No first man?
No Moses and no law?
No theme of freedom from bondage?
No curtain separating the people from God?



And that's only a few.
Those two books are the very foundations of the rest of the bible. How can it stand if what it's built on is ripped from under it?

All you have left is a rule book

I fall into the very unsure category when talking about origins of life and the universe. I have no doubt that the Bible will be proven true, whether or not it is literally or figuratively true is what I'm unsure about.

However, I have yet to see any evidence that convinces me life could have evolved in the way Darwinists claim. The fossil record doesn't support it; it shows spontaneous bursts of life, not gradual change of it. DNA discoveries show that all species alive today are equi-distant in relation to each other, which should not occur if we've all evolved. Carbon-dating is marginally reliable, at best. We have not seen any species "evolve" into any new species; humans are still humans and apes are still apes. Until evolution scientists can get some real and substantial evidence that backs up their claims, I'll take it the same way I take theories that aliens are secretly planning an invasion alongside the government.

Just my 2 cents,
=) Mandy

I am glad you are keeping an open mind, and this is important since this is really a "non-salvation" issue. But you make a number of assertions:

"The fossil record doesn't support it; it shows spontaneous bursts of life, not gradual change of it. DNA discoveries show that all species alive today are equi-distant in relation to each other, which should not occur if we've all evolved. Carbon-dating is marginally reliable, at best. We have not seen any species "evolve" into any new species"

In fact, every single one of these statements is not correct, and there is specific evidence to disprove each. It sounds as if you have gotten your information about evolution from Creationist sources. If this is the case, see my signature line! :0)

As you read the threads on this forum, but even more so on the Creation and Evolution Forum (not just for Christians), you will see a great deal of evidence that the Creationist sources usually ignore.

But back to the original point, it is essential to realize that we ALL agree that the Bible is true, as you say, either literally or figuratively.

__________________
In matters that are obscure and far beyond our vision, even in such as we may find treated in Holy Scripture, different Interpretations are sometimes possible without prejudice to the faith we have received. - St. Augustine, in his analysis of Genesis.

What should be equally suspect is the notion that the vast majority of scientists (Christian and non) working in relevant fields over the last full century have been blindly parading a false science, one that nevetheless predicted DNA and explains patterns in speciation remarkably well. It's as insane a conspiracy as the government/alien collaboration to think that a few marginal scientists and folks with divinity degrees who try to prove a literal interpretation of the Bible should have stumbled on the more obvious truth of origins science, while having their ample evidence shoved under the rug by other scientists. Now that's preposterous.

__________________

Vance,
I've done quite a bit of reading on both sides of the fence (not posts but scientific journals, books, etc.) and I have yet to find evidence that disproves anything I said. Actually, I've found that most honest evolutionists will admit that these are some of the problems with their theory, just as honest creationists will admit that the age of the Earth and lack of evidence of the flood are some of their stumbling blocks. If you can direct me to any evidence that is contrary to the points I've asserted, I'll be more than happy to take a look at it. Until then, I stay unconvinced of both evolution and literal Biblical creation.

Didaskomenos,
I agree we should be skeptical of both sides, as there are many in each camp that have an agenda they're trying to promote through their science. However I don't think you can lump all creation scientists into the "marginal scientists and folks with divinity degrees" category, just like you can't assume all evolutionists are atheists.

Thanks for the feedback,
=) Mandy

This is not the thread to be setting out the refuting evidence, but I would be happy to do so elsewhere if you ask them in a separate thread. But, now that I re-read your post, you are making some of these assertions in a positive way, ie. this IS true, rather than something is not true. For those positive assertions, you would have to come up with the evidence.

Also, we have provided the evidence on each of these points so often by now that it should not take long perusing this forum and the Creation and Evolution forum to find them (and a LOT of other good stuff as well).

And really, it is useless to cite Creationist sources for such propositions, since those sources rarely are backed up by solid evidentiary foundations. But, since you have read the evidence on both sides, you should be able to provide evidence from non-Creationist sources to back up your claims.

And, yes, ANY scientific theory will have areas that need fuller explanation. There is not, however, any difficulty with evolution that indicates it is wrong. We may not know whether X or Y process is more common, or we may not yet know exactly how Z happens, but really there are no "problems" with the theory of evolution as the best explanation for the facts of evolution.

But, really, this is not the thread for this discussion. Feel free to start any new thread asking for any evidences you like, or providing the evidence for any positive assertions you are making.

__________________
In matters that are obscure and far beyond our vision, even in such as we may find treated in Holy Scripture, different Interpretations are sometimes possible without prejudice to the faith we have received. - St. Augustine, in his analysis of Genesis.

mrflibble,

But anti-evolutionary creationists are indeed marginal scientists (losing the latter term loosely) - this just means that there are a very few of them and they stand in opposition to the most foundational theory that other scientists work under. And it's definitely the fundamentalist seminaries that drive the movement among evangelical leaders to insist upon the Genesis account being taken as mere historical account.

You seem to have an open mind. . . if so, stick around this forum for a while. You're standing at a place of defensiveness to what you first accepted, namely a view of the Genesis account as history. It took me awhile to get away from that, because I thought it would be cool if the Bible were history and everybody else in the world was wrong. It didn't take long searching with all my heart and mind to give me the gut feeling that my interpretation of Genesis was wrong, and that the thousands of Christian scientists who are evolutionary creationists were right.

__________________

Gentlemen,

I'll be honest here and say that I don't want to argue with either of you about the points I have asserted (as it almost always turns nasty and that's not what I was going for) so I will not go any further in evidentiary matters in this thread (as you said Vance, it's not the place).

I also don't want to get too far away from my original point, which is that I am doubtful of both sides. The problem I have is that although science is supposed to be objective, it will always be subjective simply because it's a human concept. Everyone has a point of view and that individual perspective will always leak into other areas, even those that are supposed to be exclusive of them, simply because we're human and that's what human beings do. Is it conscious? No. But it is inevitable because it's our nature.

Also scientists in general don't always convey results that are contrary to their point of view. It is rare indeed to see a study published that contradicts the hypothesis presented (and the few that do are almost always presented in a manner that makes it seem like a success...that's partly why there are always very heated debates within the scientific community itself). Why is that? Because results that don't jibe with the idea are considered failures. Not too many people publicly proclaim their "failures". This goes for scientists on both sides of the debate.

Now aside from physical evidence, I have a few logical/theological problems with evolutionary theory that maybe you guys can help me with, since you both seem to have a pretty good handle on the origins debate. I realize that a strictly literal interpretation currently appears to contradict geological findings about the Earth's age, etc. Personally, I think there certainly could have been, and most likely were other humans during the age of Adam and Eve. I see Genesis, and the Old Testament as a tracking of Christ's geneology.

But my problem is this: if God is who we believe He is (loving, caring, personal, etc.) I have a hard time believing that He would leave human creation to random natural processes (which is the basis of Darwinist evolution). I certainly don't doubt He COULD do it, but it seems very impersonal. That doesn't fit, in my head at least, with the God of the Bible, who has His hand in everything, who loves His creatures so much He sacrificed His Son for us. I'm not baiting you guys here. I genuinely want to know from people who firmly believe in both creation and evolution, how do you reconcile random micro-mutation with a loving God???

OK, so I did stray a bit. My curiosity got the better of me.

Thanks again for your thoughtful input,
=) Mandy

Hey Mandy,

First of all, thanks for keeping an open mind to the TE perspective. I know we are probably all guilty of judging the 'other side' at times, so thanks for being a light for us all.

As for your question:
I think the best explanation I can think of is that God created those natural processes, so really, they aren't random to a certain extent at least . If God wished the earth to form in a certain way, then He would have created the Earth so that it would form in this way. After all, DNA is a fascinatingly-complicated system, which I think alone can give us a glimpse of God's power. A lot of anti-evolution arguments are focussed on the fact that certain things in nature (vis. complicated biological systems) could not have developed through evolutionary processes. Certainly, science is yet to offer a definite answer to this question, but science is not complete (and probably never will be). Personally I believe that if God created the universe through the Big Bang, evolution etc. then He was the one who 'set the parameters' so to speak that enabled it all to happen.

As for being impersonal, I guess it does kill our ego a bit if humans did descend from apes! But still, have a look here:

'And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground...'
- Genesis 2:7

Ouch. We were formed from dust. Maybe coming from an ape isn't so bad after all! I think the most important thing about human creation is epitomised in the rest of the verse:

'... and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.'
- Genesis 2:7 (contd.)

The important thing (imo) is not how we were created. It is why we were created, and who created us - the wonderful God who sent His son to Earth. Amen!

I agree that it is all about intentionality. God purposed that we be here, and whether he guided or did not guide the processes (I am unsure), it doesn't matter. God is the sovereign King, and therefore what he purposes is extremely personal. But when he willed that his son should die for us - that's where humanity gets its worth.

__________________