Irrantionality of Creationism

[sampson x]

QUOTE]No. Future evolution does not change the past. Since we are animals, all of our descendants will be animals too. Evolution does not allow for jumping from one kingdom to another. (See my signature.)[/QUOTE]

I know what you're saying, but what I'm saying is that since there are Five Kingdoms that there must have been a point where these Five Kingdoms came about. I'm saying that someday there's bound to be more Kingdoms if Evolution is to continue long enough. We could only start with one, and now we have five...
oh, never mind. This is too far off subject. I shouldn't even be posting this, but I have to clear up my point.

 

[Dannager]

so in our physical bodies, we arent inherently human? were just something else that got some mutations or something? its my understanding that we were created in the image and likeness of God, in body and soul, not soul alone--that would be Gnosticism. The Fathers are pretty clear on this.

It may very well be that we have evolved to be "in the image and likeness of God". I'm not one to judge whether or not that is the case. But in our physical bodies, we are what we are. And, to be fair, jckstraw72, saying "were just something else that got some mutations or something" is more true than you know. You, yourself, are your two parents plus some mutations. You are living proof of mutation and natural selection (and thus, evolution).

 

[jckstraw72]

So our bodies are in the image and likeness of God?

Yes. God created us as body and soul. We are not one or the other, we are both. If we were just souls in bodies then Christ would have no reason to take on flesh to save us. The bodily resurrection of the elect would make no sense.

 

[jckstraw72]

It may very well be that we have evolved to be "in the image and likeness of God". I'm not one to judge whether or not that is the case. But in our physical bodies, we are what we are. And, to be fair, jckstraw72, saying "were just something else that got some mutations or something" is more true than you know. You, yourself, are your two parents plus some mutations. You are living proof of mutation and natural selection (and thus, evolution).

i still think this sounds an awful lot like the duality of Gnosticism and Manicheanism, or even like Nestorianism--separating the physical realm from the noetic realm, when the two are really integral parts of a whole in the case of humanity.

If we are just glorified animals by virture of God breathing a spirit into us, and it is that spirit alone which is the image and likeness, then why arent the angels in the image and likeness of God? They are purely spirit, and evolution in the context of Christianity would say we are purely spirit, simply placed into pre-existing, animali bodies.

 

[jckstraw72]

bump

 

[lismore]

I think the same thing goes for everything. Especially controversial issues (such as Evolution). Rather than listening to Dawkins' rants about religion (something he apparently knows little about, content-wise), .

It all comes over like an anti-religous rant based on nothing.

Even TEs are ranting about the parts of Christianity they cant accept. The OT is based on a Babylonian myth and lies like that.

 

[The Lady Kate]

It all comes over like an anti-religous rant based on nothing.

Not all of it... we just have the difficult task of separating the rant from the facts.

Even TEs are ranting about the parts of Christianity they cant accept. The OT is based on a Babylonian myth and lies like that.

Not a rant at all... merely a conclusion based on observation... Certainly the Babylonian Creation myth reads very similarly to Genesis... and the Babylonian story was around long before the earliest known accounts of Genesis... and the Authors of Genesis were certainly well aware of the Babylonian myth...

A conclusion that Genesis was at least somewhat influenced by Babylonians is hardly a rant... or a lie. At worst, it's an error. But 1) we'll never know for certain and 2) this isn't the thread to go into it.

 

[gluadys]

It all comes over like an anti-religous rant based on nothing.

Even TEs are ranting about the parts of Christianity they cant accept.

I haven't heard a TE say there are parts of Christianity they can't accept.

 

[Dannager]

I haven't heard a TE say there are parts of Christianity they can't accept.

Yeah, I certainly accept all aspects of Christianity.

 

[The Lady Kate]

Yeah, I certainly accept all aspects of Christianity.

It all works for me, as well...