Creation or Evolution from the Creationism Section

[Melethiel]

Creationism does not equal the Gospel, and the two should not be confounded. When witnessing to someone, tell them about Christ, and leave origins out of it completely - otherwise, if the two are confounded in their mind, that could lead to serious consequences later. I know too many people who, when they found out that Creationism doesn't hold water, lost their faith completely.

It is the Holy Spirit that saves, not a good argument. (And for the record, I find God carefully and lovingly crafting the world to be much more impressive than just poofing it into being)

 

[WingsOfEagles07]

Creationism does not equal the Gospel, and the two should not be confounded. When witnessing to someone, tell them about Christ, and leave origins out of it completely - otherwise, if the two are confounded in their mind, that could lead to serious consequences later. I know too many people who, when they found out that Creationism doesn't hold water, lost their faith completely.

It is the Holy Spirit that saves, not a good argument. (And for the record, I find God carefully and lovingly crafting the world to be much more impressive than just poofing it into being)

I understand that but a lot of people do not understand how creationism lines up with the Gospel. If I remember right in Acts 13 and Acts 17 the apostle Paul first showed the people he was talking to about GOD being the creator of the universe then gave them the Gospel to let them understand wo GOD was since the cross would be foolishness if they did not know who he was first. Just because one person lost their faith due to creationism does validate that evolution must be the right view of the universe, because it could be that he/she does not understand how it works within the Bible. Afterall, AiG with Ken Ham, Jason Lisle and many other scientists speak around the world and have helped save thousands of souls through teaching Creation. But they also know more than I do obviously.

 

[Melethiel]

Telling people that God is the Creator of the universe =/= Creationism (And the Greeks largely believed that the universe was eternal, not created, so just telling them it was created was a big step - nothing to do with HOW)

 

[gluadys]

I am sorry for such a delay. I have had to run at a track meet and track practice with lots of homework then one day this forum would not connect with my computer and I was like ??? But anyway, sorry.

No problem.

You see what I mean, but to me, I take Genesis as it really is, just as in the book of Pslams near the end chapters David talks about how "God spoke" and it happened. It is not a matter of how long it took.

Then it is not a matter of evolution either. It still depends on God speaking and it happens.

Most people fight of how we came into existence by looking at evidence but if you think about it we all have the same evidence the same world with the same fossils it is just a matter of the correct interpretation. Just because a creation scientist says that evolution is true or there is evidence for it does not make it any more true than a biblical creationist like me saying that something else is evidence for creation. Yes, you can say that my interpretation is not true according the presuppositions you all may have but I can say the same thing to you.

No, this is absolutely not the case. If evidence didn't mean anything apart from personal pre-suppositions, criminal investigators could never sort out who committed a crime or even if crime was committed. Consider a possible case of arson, for example. If interpretation of the evidence is a matter of pre-supposition, one person's pre-supposition could look at the facts and say "This fire was set deliberately." and another could say "This fire was accidental." and no one could decide who is right.

When the pre-suppositions of different people lead to different conclusions, one set of pre-suppositions must be wrong, and the study of evidence is necessary to determine whose pre-suppositions are right.

Whenever I read the Bible, I read it as GOD said it and it happened just because it shows he magnificent power of the Almighty GOD.

What about when you read creation? After all the Bible also says that God's power and divinity are seen in the things that are made. Shouldn't our reading of the bible line up with our reading of creation and vice versa?

Because to me GOD using the theory of evolution made by man or thought of by man to explain the reason of how life came about over the course of millions of years does not show his mighty power to me.

That can be taken care of through a study of evolution that is not distorted by anti-evolution creationism.

I understand that but a lot of people do not understand how creationism lines up with the Gospel.

That's because anti-evolution creationism doesn't really line up with the Gospel. As noted, don't confuse creation with anti-evolution creationism. All of us believe in creation.

Afterall, AiG with Ken Ham, Jason Lisle and many other scientists speak around the world and have helped save thousands of souls through teaching Creation. But they also know more than I do obviously.

I understand that you are depending a lot on Answers in Genesis for your information about creation and evolution. I can only recommend that you widen your selection of reading material so that you get other views directly from the source, not filtered through the opinions of people who disagree.

 

[crawfish]

I understand that but a lot of people do not understand how creationism lines up with the Gospel. If I remember right in Acts 13 and Acts 17 the apostle Paul first showed the people he was talking to about GOD being the creator of the universe then gave them the Gospel to let them understand wo GOD was since the cross would be foolishness if they did not know who he was first. Just because one person lost their faith due to creationism does validate that evolution must be the right view of the universe, because it could be that he/she does not understand how it works within the Bible. Afterall, AiG with Ken Ham, Jason Lisle and many other scientists speak around the world and have helped save thousands of souls through teaching Creation. But they also know more than I do obviously.

AiG is also costing thousands of souls with their dichotomy that you cannot believe in Creation through evolution. They set in place a stumbling block that prevent many from seeing the Truth of the gospel; after all, if a Christian is telling you things that you know are wrong about the physical, why should you believe them about spiritual things?

It is not the goal of Biologos or most TE's to convince the Christian world of the truth of evolution (yet). Instead, it is our goal to open discussion within the Christian evangelical world on our point of view, and have it seen as a valid Creation option for Christians to hold. The truth is the truth, of course, but throughout the Christian world there are many differences of opinion. We TE's should not have to be afraid to speak up in our churches about what we believe.

 

[WingsOfEagles07]

No problem.



Then it is not a matter of evolution either. It still depends on God speaking and it happens.





No, this is absolutely not the case. If evidence didn't mean anything apart from personal pre-suppositions, criminal investigators could never sort out who committed a crime or even if crime was committed. Consider a possible case of arson, for example. If interpretation of the evidence is a matter of pre-supposition, one person's pre-supposition could look at the facts and say "This fire was set deliberately." and another could say "This fire was accidental." and no one could decide who is right.

When the pre-suppositions of different people lead to different conclusions, one set of pre-suppositions must be wrong, and the study of evidence is necessary to determine whose pre-suppositions are right.






What about when you read creation? After all the Bible also says that God's power and divinity are seen in the things that are made. Shouldn't our reading of the bible line up with our reading of creation and vice versa?




That can be taken care of through a study of evolution that is not distorted by anti-evolution creationism.





That's because anti-evolution creationism doesn't really line up with the Gospel. As noted, don't confuse creation with anti-evolution creationism. All of us believe in creation.





I understand that you are depending a lot on Answers in Genesis for your information about creation and evolution. I can only recommend that you widen your selection of reading material so that you get other views directly from the source, not filtered through the opinions of people who disagree.

I know about evolution and not just through anti-evolutionary systems. I had biology honors in high school and I have done a research report involving the works of Darwin and in no way did it ever convince me, of GOD using that way to create us. I also know you all believe in creation but not the creation I am talking about.

You talked about Arson, but that is also based upon the evidence within at least a minimum of 1 week to 1 year of evidence without an outside force acting upon it which adds to the probability of the outcome of being true. The evidence such as fossils has been here on earth supposedly for "billions of years" of rain, thunder storms, floods, and etc that we do not know that occurred. Therefore interpretation indeed needs to have the right interpretation not just an assumption based upon someone's presuppositions.

 

[gluadys]

I know about evolution and not just through anti-evolutionary systems. I had biology honors in high school and I have done a research report involving the works of Darwin and in no way did it ever convince me, of GOD using that way to create us. I also know you all believe in creation but not the creation I am talking about.

You talked about Arson, but that is also based upon the evidence within at least a minimum of 1 week to 1 year of evidence without an outside force acting upon it which adds to the probability of the outcome of being true. The evidence such as fossils has been here on earth supposedly for "billions of years" of rain, thunder storms, floods, and etc that we do not know that occurred. Therefore interpretation indeed needs to have the right interpretation not just an assumption based upon someone's presuppositions.

All you are saying is that evidence left exposed deteriorates and leaves us without evidence. Fossils, during most of their existence, have not been left exposed. In fact, organisms don't become fossils in the first place unless they are sheltered from exposure to weather and scavengers. That is also why fossils need to be found quickly when erosion does expose them, because otherwise they would soon be eroded away too.

Yes, "interpretation indeed needs to have the right interpretation not just an assumption based upon someone's presuppositions." So you have come round to agreeing with me, that we can't leave the interpretation of evidence up to anyone's presuppositions. We need to let our presuppositions and assumptions be corrected by the evidence.

 

[Mallon]

I am sorry for such a delay. I have had to run at a track meet and track practice with lots of homework then one day this forum would not connect with my computer and I was like ??? But anyway, sorry.

No need to apologize for having a life.

I am sorry, but even though you all may rely on some of the teachings of Biologos in which I know of through AiG. I know of evolution but not really through a theistic evolutionist way. You understand? I know how to defend the Bible from evolution through an Atheistic worldview. Like, I can refute evolution through the way of an atheist but through the eyes of a theistic evolutionist since we believe in the same GOD.

If you are able to refute the evidence for evolution used by atheists, you should be able to refute the evidence for evolution used by evolutionary creationists. The reason being that both groups refer to the same evidence. It isn't as though atheists have one form of science, and Christians have another. We all have the same science, which is why people of all faiths (and the faithless) can come to the same scientific conclusions. This is why we don't have to sign belief waivers when we submit our papers for publication in science journals (unlike creationist organizations like AiG, which do not do science).
Honestly, though, I question whether you truly understand the evidence for evolution. It strikes me that you do not because you're conflating evolution and atheism. The two have nothing to do with one another (despite what folks like Dawkins and Meyers say).

Most people fight of how we came into existence by looking at evidence but if you think about it we all have the same evidence the same world with the same fossils it is just a matter of the correct interpretation. Just because a creation scientist says that evolution is true or there is evidence for it does not make it any more true than a biblical creationist like me saying that something else is evidence for creation.

You see, that's utter baloney because there is no such thing as creation "science". In science, we do not presuppose a conclusion and then search for evidence to support it. We start with observations first, come up with some hypotheses to explain those observations, design experiments to test those hypotheses, and draw some conclusions from the results of those experiments.
Creation "science" doesn't work like that.
Creation "science" first presupposes that the Genesis creation accounts are literal and historical as written. This is a given -- it is not allowed to be tested by evidence. It is unfalsifiable. It is dogma. Observations about the world are then pigeon-holed into this framework, and any observations that do not fit nicely into the creationist framework are attributed to miracles of God or are simply ignored. That's not science. It's willful ignorance. You will find this description of the creationist "method" outlined on the AiG website, though.

Because to me GOD using the theory of evolution made by man or thought of by man to explain the reason of how life came about over the course of millions of years does not show his mighty power to me.

That's too bad.
Where do you see God's power in nature? Where don't you see God's power in nature?

I love GOD and I know some of you guys also do, but I say lets stop arguing of who is correct about the origins of the universe and of life and lets go out into the world and save souls.

Agreed.

 

[Papias]

WingsofEagles wrote:

Because to me GOD using the theory of evolution made by man or thought of by man to explain the reason of how life came about over the course of millions of years does not show his mighty power to me.

Is it not a more powerful God, who can create not just some little trinkets, but instead is so powerful that he can create a creation that can continue on creating on it's own?

Look at what you are saying. You are saying that a God who is unable to make a creation that can act on it's own, but who rather can only fashion a pretty bauble that just sits there, is more powerful than a God who can create a world that works without the need for a nanny God to constantly fiddle with it to get it to work?

I think that the God of the theistic evolution supporter is a much more wonderful and powerful God!

Papias

 

[Mallon]

"If you deny evolution, then the sort of God you have in mind is a bit like a pool player who can sink fifteen balls in a row, but only by taking fifteen separate shots. My God plays the game a little differently. He walks up to the table, takes just one shot, and sinks all the balls. I ask you which pool player, which God, is more worthy of praise and worship?" -- Michael Corey, "The God Hypothesis"

 

[vossler]

Most people fight of how we came into existence by looking at evidence but if you think about it we all have the same evidence the same world with the same fossils it is just a matter of the correct interpretation.

Exactly, even more precise is having the correct worldview from which to develop our interpretation.

Whenever I read the Bible, I read it as GOD said it and it happened just because it shows he magnificent power of the Almighty GOD. Because to me GOD using the theory of evolution made by man or thought of by man to explain the reason of how life came about over the course of millions of years does not show his mighty power to me.

You may be young but you are wise not to question God's Word. It's encouraging to see so many young people as yourself not allowing themselves to be caught in the lies of the world.

...I say lets stop arguing of who is correct about the origins of the universe and of life and lets go out into the world and save souls.

Agreed except we must be prepared to give a reason for what we believe and there is but only one correct answer and the Bible gives it to us. It is the Word of God that penetrates a man's soul, if he's open to hearing it.

You guys are not going to change my mind even if your knowledge of theistic evolution can out surpass the knowledge GOD has blessed me with to teach to the world and help reach souls to CHRIST! AMEN! PRAISE GOD!

Let's be clear here, a TE's knowledge of evolution will NEVER surpass the knowledge God has blessed you with. Don't even allow that thought to cross your mind.

Wings...go and preach the Word without hesitation and live the life of Truth.

 

[Chesterton]

"If you deny evolution, then the sort of God you have in mind is a bit like a pool player who can sink fifteen balls in a row, but only by taking fifteen separate shots. My God plays the game a little differently. He walks up to the table, takes just one shot, and sinks all the balls. I ask you which pool player, which God, is more worthy of praise and worship?" -- Michael Corey, "The God Hypothesis"

That's funny. It reminded me of Tim the Enchanter from Monty Python's Holy Grail. He keeps making separate fiery explosions until they feel the need to politely applaud.

 

[mark kennedy]

This spammer is probably a scoffer playing around.

 

[Chesterton]

What an eccentric performance.

 

[WingsOfEagles07]

I am sorry again these past few days have been really busy for me. I have had homework a lot since I have to AP tests to study for one being this Friday and next Wed. I have had track meets, revival meetings. Just really busy. I know I have a life Mallon haha.

I do not know why people like to spam, it is so stupid.

I know that many people do not agree with what I believe but everyone will believe differently on this type of issue. Creation vs. Evolution has been going on for how many years and still no one can figure out which to believe is right. I am not saying that I agree partially to evolution because I am 100% anti-evolution even if it is theistic. I do not agree with the evolutionary theory. From what I know now, I cannot change my mind. I know a lot of information on both evolution by "biology" class and Creation. And from looking at both belief systems the one that appears correct is Creation. It may be sad to you, but to me I know Creation is right.

I might go post some in the end-times (Eschatology section) I love prophecy too. I will still post on here, but I still cannot see the logical outcome from evolution, why would GOD use evolution to create man? Like I have said about "no death before man." If you take the hebrew word for death -- (I think) it means for animals and humans at the instant Adam sinned.

 

[Melethiel]

Did Adam die a physical death the instant he sinned?

 

[mark kennedy]

I am sorry again these past few days have been really busy for me. I have had homework a lot since I have to AP tests to study for one being this Friday and next Wed. I have had track meets, revival meetings. Just really busy. I know I have a life Mallon haha.

Sounds like you have a lot going on, surprised you even have time for this.

I do not know why people like to spam, it is so stupid.

It's a tactic evolutionists use, they like to have someone around who uses those tactics to keep the more serious creationists distracted.

I know that many people do not agree with what I believe but everyone will believe differently on this type of issue. Creation vs. Evolution has been going on for how many years and still no one can figure out which to believe is right. I am not saying that I agree partially to evolution because I am 100% anti-evolution even if it is theistic. I do not agree with the evolutionary theory. From what I know now, I cannot change my mind. I know a lot of information on both evolution by "biology" class and Creation. And from looking at both belief systems the one that appears correct is Creation. It may be sad to you, but to me I know Creation is right.

One thing about creation and evolution, both are living theories about origins that start after life has begun. The subject of origins is a philosophical one, science and theology may come into play but ultimately what you believe about our origins comes down to values. If you value God's Word above the informed opinion of secular authorities you are simply a free thinker.

Take your time with this subject and do your own thinking. From a personal perspective I think you will find what you learn in Biology class and Sunday school will have very little to do with one another.

I might go post some in the end-times (Eschatology section) I love prophecy too. I will still post on here, but I still cannot see the logical outcome from evolution, why would GOD use evolution to create man? Like I have said about "no death before man." If you take the hebrew word for death -- (I think) it means for animals and humans at the instant Adam sinned.

With regards to the text that says, 'you will surely die', it literally means something to the order of, 'dieing you shall die'. The Scriptures are silent about the animals but speak directly to death in a human context:

Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned-- (Romans 5:12)​

What is really important here is that Christ died to remove the curse of sin and death on the world:

Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous. (Romans 5:18,19)​

Evolution and creation are interesting, the completed work of Christ in the power of the Holy Spirit according to the will of the Father is life and truth to those who believe. Set your mind on Christ and the rest will happen naturally.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Orogeny]

It's a tactic evolutionists use, they like to have someone around who uses those tactics to keep the more serious creationists distracted.

No, you're right, we're all a bunch of spammers. You know who's not? Dad. And AVET. And Juvenissun. And Doveman. Nah, they wouldn't spam, would they?

One thing about creation and evolution, both are living theories about origins that start after life has begun. The subject of origins is a philosophical one, science and theology may come into play but ultimately what you believe about our origins comes down to values. If you value God's Word above the informed opinion of secular authorities you are simply a free thinker.

Valuing god's word is well and good, but ignoring what he created directly (the universe) in favour of a personal interpretation of a book written by fallible men and translated by the same is just plain silly. Also, creation (if you are using this as a synonym for 'creationism') is not a theory since it cannot be tested.

Take your time with this subject and do your own thinking. From a personal perspective I think you will find what you learn in Biology class and Sunday school will have very little to do with one another.

We agree that they shouldn't. Unfortunately, quite a few sunday schools see things differently.

Wings: Please understand that simply because you do not see why or how god can create through evolution does not mean that he cannot. Do not reject the natural world in favour of a book, even if that book is the bible. God created the universe directly; he did not create the bible directly. Where our faith is contradictory to the evidence found in the natural world, we can be quite sure that our faith needs an adjustment. Please reconsider your stance on evolution, and feel free to speak with myself or the other TE's hanging around the boards (I'll volunteer Mallon here, as he is especially qualified) when there is something about this aspect of science that you have questions about.

Good luck on your tests.

 

[EveryTongueConfess]

Addressing WingsOfEagles07

Your basic question is why would God use evolution?
The simple answer is we don't know.
We don't know why God does certain things He does, but nonetheless the facts and evidence point towards Evolution
Why did God use water to flood the Earth/Land? We really don't know, perhaps He could have used a different method

We don't know why God does what He does, but He did do it (at least I believe He used Evolution) and that is why we follow what we believe He did

 

[Assyrian]

"Catabolic" is related to "devil" (Greek diabolos, and katabole= throwing down).
(Hmm, there's some ammo for an imaginative creationist. )

Mark 4:33 With many such parables (parabole from paraballo = to throw alongside) he spoke the word to them, as they were able to hear it.
Mark 1:39 And he went throughout all Galilee, preaching in their synagogues and casting out (ekballo = throw out) demons.
John 8:7 He who is without sin among you, let him throw (ballo) the first stone