How can you say you believe in god?

[sfs]

This is true, but most evolutionists think about it in the terms of abiogenesis. My point is that evolutionists often see the process of evolution as having eliminated the need for God interfering in the natural history of our world. Therefore, evolution and Christianity is incompatible.

As others have pointed out, your conclusion does not follow from your premises. The fact that many scientists are Christians who accept evolution demonstrates that your conclusion is actually false.

Darwin himself, however, recognised the presence of a being like God would effectively undermine the theory of evolution; if we admit God into the process, Darwin argued, then God would ensure that only the right variations occured, and natural selection would be redundant. The whole point of evolution is that the need for a creator was unnecessary, because nature would create itself.

I too would like to see where Darwin said this, since it doesn't sound at all like the Darwin I've read.

 

[crawfish]

Do you understand about the curse and why man was cursed and how death entered the picture and why Adam and Eve were ousted out of the Garden of Eden? :o

Man was not cursed, the ground was. Physical death was already a reality in Eden, thus the "Tree of Life". So says the scriptures.

And, you never really answered my question.

 

[crawfish]

No, you don't understand. That is what the majority of the evolutionist group believe. As for me, I don't believe in evolution the slightest.

You're misunderstanding his question. Is God present in natural processes? For instance, we can track the development of a human baby from conception to birth - is a baby still a miracle from God? Is God still present in that process?

 

[Mallon]

No, you don't understand. That is what the majority of the evolutionist group believe.

I beg to differ. The majority of evolutionists are Christians, at least in the USA. Someone worked out the numbers here not all that long ago. Regardless, as you've been told, the merits of evolutionary creationism stand on their own right and are not subject to what certain people (or how many of them) think about them. It is certainly well within the realm of Christianity (one might even say it is imperative) to accept that God works even through natural processes, including evolution, contrary to what you've implied here. It strikes me that in order to deny evolution, you've done more to weaken the role of God in your own faith!

 

[gluadys]

i fear we may not be communicating...whom are you speaking of?

"Origen, John Chrysostom, Augustine, Benedict, Bernard of Clairvaux, Dante Alighieri, Hildegard of Bingen, Thomas Aquinas and many others revered as exemplary Christians"

from post 2

 

[gluadys]

My point is that evolutionists often see the process of evolution as having eliminated the need for God interfering in the natural history of our world. Therefore, evolution and Christianity is incompatible.

Where does Christianity say God needs to interfere in natural history? or human history for that matter?

 

[Znex]

I too would like to see where Darwin said this, since it doesn't sound at all like the Darwin I've read.

Apparently, it was quoted by a Nancy Pearcey.

Where does Christianity say God needs to interfere in natural history? or human history for that matter?

Well that's the whole point of Christianity, isn't it? That God came down in the form of a peasant and lived among us, preaching about himself and his kingdom and performing miraculous signs before being beaten and whipped, and being crucified on a cross. That whole story has affected human history.

You're misunderstanding his question. Is God present in natural processes? For instance, we can track the development of a human baby from conception to birth - is a baby still a miracle from God? Is God still present in that process?

Obviously I believe that.

Guys, evolution is false. And there is proof.

 

[Dark_Lite]

Guys, evolution is false. And there is proof.

Is that so?

 

[laconicstudent]

Guys, evolution is false. And there is proof.

Naturally you simply forgot to provide your sources for that. Sources which come from Nature, Science, or Proceedings of the National Academy of the Sciences or another reputable peer-reviewed research periodical?

 

[sfs]

Apparently, it was quoted by a Nancy Pearcey.

So provide the quotation.

Guys, evolution is false. And there is proof.

Where? Studying evolution is part of what I do for a living, and I'm not aware of any proof that it's false.

 

[brinny]

Originally Posted by brinny
Do you understand about the curse and why man was cursed and how death entered the picture and why Adam and Eve were ousted out of the Garden of Eden?

Man was not cursed, the ground was. Physical death was already a reality in Eden, thus the "Tree of Life". So says the scriptures.

And, you never really answered my question.

Physical death was a reality before sin, in the Garden of Eden? Where is this written?

 

[crawfish]

Physical death was a reality before sin, in the Garden of Eden? Where is this written?

I would ask you the same thing. Where do you get that physical death was NOT in the garden? What verse explicitly makes that claim?

Why would a tree of life exist in the garden that would keep them alive forever (Gen 3:22) if they could not die in the first place?

 

[metherion]

Also, to even eat, Adam and Eve (not to mention all the animals) had to pick, eat, and ingest plant matter, leading to the death of said plant tissue. So the parts of the plants they ate died. That is death. Period. That's assuming that carnivores weren't busy eating other animals, too.

Metherion

 

[laconicstudent]

Physical death was a reality before sin, in the Garden of Eden? Where is this written?

It doesn't have to be written. Its common sense, and patently obvious for anyone who has ever seen this:

 

[gluadys]

Apparently, it was quoted by a Nancy Pearcey.

Where does Christianity say God needs to interfere in natural history? or human history for that matter?

Well that's the whole point of Christianity, isn't it? That God came down in the form of a peasant and lived among us, preaching about himself and his kingdom and performing miraculous signs before being beaten and whipped, and being crucified on a cross. That whole story has affected human history.

Christianity also says God did not need to do any of that. That's why it is called grace---something God gave by free choice, not because he needed to.

Now if you were to say we needed God to do that, you would be on firm ground.

But to get back to the original question. Why would God need to interfere in natural history? And if he doesn't need to, why would he choose to?

 

[shernren]

Apparently, it was quoted by a Nancy Pearcey.

Goodness me. Nancy Pearcey is a conservative intelligent-design supporter. Asking her what Darwin thought is a little like asking Dawkins for ten reasons to believe Jesus Christ.

(I was going to say "asking Hitler to tell us why the Jews are a great race", but then I would lose by default - Godwin's Rule.)

Guys, evolution is false. And there is proof.

Yeah, I know there is Proof:

but I'm not very sure what it has to do with evolution.

 

[Znex]

It doesn't have to be written. Its common sense, and patently obvious for anyone who has ever seen this:
shark image

Well obviously back in those days, sharks and bears and other beasts meant no harm to humans. Since sin did not exist in the world at that time, it would be the same as how it will be in the endtimes:

The wolf will live with the lamb,
the leopard will lie down with the goat,
the calf and the lion and the yearling together;
and a little child will lead them.

The cow will feed with the bear,
their young will lie down together,
and the lion will eat straw like the ox.

The infant will play near the hole of the cobra,
and the young child put his hand into the viper's nest.

They will neither harm nor destroy
on all my holy mountain,
for the earth will be full of the knowledge of the LORD
as the waters cover the sea.

(Isaiah 11:6-9)

----

Also, to even eat, Adam and Eve (not to mention all the animals) had to pick, eat, and ingest plant matter, leading to the death of said plant tissue. So the parts of the plants they ate died. That is death. Period. That's assuming that carnivores weren't busy eating other animals, too.

Metherion

The whole plant doesn't die though. Have you seen an apple tree die when you pick an apple off it? Or a grapevine wither up when you take off a grape? Or a herb plant die when you snatch a single leaf?
----

Christianity also says God did not need to do any of that. That's why it is called grace---something God gave by free choice, not because he needed to.

Now if you were to say we needed God to do that, you would be on firm ground.

But to get back to the original question. Why would God need to interfere in natural history? And if he doesn't need to, why would he choose to?

That is true.

Also, if God didn't interfere in natural history, then none of it would exist. Natural history needs God to interfere with it in order to exist. God didn't have to, but he did. I don't know why he did, for he has not revealed his full plans to us.

 

[metherion]

The whole plant doesn't die though. Have you seen an apple tree die when you pick an apple off it? Or a grapevine wither up when you take off a grape? Or a herb plant die when you snatch a single leaf?

But the apple dies. The grape dies. The leaf dies. They are dead. Period. No longer living. Busy being digested. Gone. Kicked off. Shuffled on from this mortal coil. (I can't say any more without relistening to the Monty Python parrot sketch ). Just because the entire tree doesn't die does NOT mean there is no death when you pick the fruit.

Metherion

 

[Assyrian]

Well obviously back in those days, sharks and bears and other beasts meant no harm to humans. Since sin did not exist in the world at that time, it would be the same as how it will be in the endtimes:

The wolf will live with the lamb,
the leopard will lie down with the goat,
the calf and the lion and the yearling together;
and a little child will lead them.

The cow will feed with the bear,
their young will lie down together,
and the lion will eat straw like the ox.

The infant will play near the hole of the cobra,
and the young child put his hand into the viper's nest.

They will neither harm nor destroy
on all my holy mountain,
for the earth will be full of the knowledge of the LORD
as the waters cover the sea.

(Isaiah 11:6-9)

There are two major problems for Creationists using this passage, firstly it refers to the future, not the creation. Nowhere does the passage say "the wolf will live with the lamb... just like it was in Eden". So this interpretation, though quote popular in creationist circles, is taking the passage way out of context. Then there is the question of how literally you should take the passage. Of course Creationists do tend to be literalists, but even literalists recognise that there are passages in scripture that are clearly figurative. Just look at the context.

Isaiah 11:1 There shall come forth a shoot from the stump of Jesse, and a branch from his roots shall bear fruit.
2 And the Spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him, the Spirit of wisdom and understanding, the Spirit of counsel and might, the Spirit of knowledge and the fear of the LORD.
3 And his delight shall be in the fear of the LORD. He shall not judge by what his eyes see, or decide disputes by what his ears hear,
4 but with righteousness he shall judge the poor, and decide with equity for the meek of the earth; and he shall strike the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips he shall kill the wicked.
5 Righteousness shall be the belt of his waist, and faithfulness the belt of his loins.

You have Messiah growing out of a tree stump with a rod in his mouth that he hits the ground with. This is a highly figurative apocalyptic vision of the future and Messiah bringing justice to the poor and downtrodden. It is not even a case of Isaiah simply changing subject, because he is back to the root of Jesse in verse 10.

 

[gluadys]

Also, if God didn't interfere in natural history, then none of it would exist. Natural history needs God to interfere with it in order to exist. God didn't have to, but he did. I don't know why he did, for he has not revealed his full plans to us.

Nature wouldn't exist if God did not create it, but we were speaking of natural history. Why does nature need God to interfere with its history? There would be a natural history with or without intervention (just as there would be a human history with or without God's intervention).

God intervened in human history, e.g. through the incarnation, to redeem humanity. But for what purpose would non-human nature need any intervention prior to his intervention in human history? What part of natural history required God to interfere?