Why not both?

[juvenissun]

As a first time poster here, I have to wonder why everyone seems to ignore this simple question?

If you can accept that God is wise and great enough to Create everything, why can't you accept that He also gave His creations the ability to adapt, over time, to changing environmental factors (which is known as evolution)?
Why does it have to be one or the other, when BOTH makes sense, both Biblically and scientifically...

If one accepted that human evolved from chimp, then there are serious consequences. That is why evolution can not be true in Christianity.

 

[crjmurray]

If one accepted that human evolved from chimp, then there are serious consequences. That is why evolution can not be true in Christianity.

No one says a human evolved from a chimp.

 

[SLP]

If one accepted that human evolved from chimp, then there are serious consequences. That is why evolution can not be true in Christianity.

So, in Christianity, one is compelled to reject that which does not comport with the musings of ancient middle eastern numerologists?

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

No one says a human evolved from a chimp.

Agenda driven monkeys do.

 

[AV1611VET]

As a first time poster here, I have to wonder why everyone seems to ignore this simple question?

Hello and welcome to CF!

Why does it have to be one or the other, when BOTH makes sense, both Biblically and scientifically...

In making it make sense Biblically, you have to make other parts of the Bible not make sense -- like deep time.

 

[AV1611VET]

I guess those who can't also believe that the Earth is only 10000 years old, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary?

I can't speak for the others, but I don't believe in macroevolution, and I believe the earth is 4.57 billion years old.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yep

I'm an exception.

 

[AV1611VET]

It strikes me that 'God kicked off the whole process and then allowed it to run its course' is a less irrational explanation.

What you're talking about is called "deism."

Theistic evolutionists believe in what is called "guided evolution" -- (I think).

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

I can't speak for the others, but I don't believe in macroevolution, and I believe the earth is 4.57 billion years old.

Translated: 'it's over my head'
Refer: The Scientific Method & Macroevolution (link to follow here)

 

[bhsmte]

I can't speak for the others, but I don't believe in macroevolution, and I believe the earth is 4.57 billion years old.

Do you rely on science to agree with the 4.57 billion year age?

 

[AV1611VET]

Translated: 'it's over my head'

It might be over yours, but it's not over mine.

 

[bhsmte]

Translated: 'it's over my head'
Refer: The Scientific Method & Macroevolution (link to follow here)

More like; it conflicts with my beliefs and I am going to pretend it doesn't exist.

 

[AV1611VET]

Do you rely on science to agree with the 4.57 billion year age?

No.

I rely on scientists to tell me how old the earth is.

It's then up to me to either accept it or reject it.

In this case, I accept it.

 

[SLP]

Do you rely on science to agree with the 4.57 billion year age?

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

More like; it conflicts with my beliefs and I am going to pretend it doesn't exist.

You certainly have a way with words!

 

[AV1611VET]

More like; it conflicts with my beliefs and I am going to pretend it doesn't exist.

I've never, in nine years, pretended macroevolution doesn't exist.

In fact, I've stated many times it does -- but only on paper.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

No.

I rely on scientists to tell me how old the earth is.

It's then up to me to either accept it or reject it.

In this case, I accept it.

A crater of confusion lurks between thine ears.

 

[bhsmte]

In this case, I accept it.

What is your reasoning behind, accepting this part of science?

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Adaptation through mutation, yes.

Evolution (changing from one species into another altogether), no.

Man evolving from lower life forms, no.

Do you think that a species trying to adapt to an ever changing environment, over time would become almost an entirely different species? That is, by being forced by the environment to continue to adapt, it eventually adapts to such a drastically different environment, that it is basically a wholly different animal than what we started with.

You acknowledged adaptation. Where do you draw the line with it?

 

[AV1611VET]

What is your reasoning behind, accepting this part of science?

QV please:

My Boolean Standards:

1. Whatever the Bible supports: support.
2. Whatever the Bible trumps: trump.
3. If the Bible is silent and science supports it: support it.
4. If the Bible is silent and science trumps it: trump it.