My Evolution Challenge

[Mountainmike]

You could have just said this entirely and left it at that.

The rest of your comment was waffle.

And also, no, that wasn't your first comment at all.

I can only remind you , you are posting on a science, not faith forum.

Scientific precision matters, my response Was a scientific response.

As I also point out that in absence of definition , saying God could have used evolution ( undefined ) to produce lifeforms ( undefined). it is a safe statement which cannot be challenged because of imprecision.
But THAT is the part of my post that IS unscientific waffle.

It’s The rest you reject was the proper answer!

if you think life has a soul, evolution cannot be the answer to life, so God cannot have used it.QED.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I've never given a reason at all why I believe that?

You have at some point but the specifics escape me. Something do with the number of Bibles and books or something.

Academia breeds intolerance and ridicule.

It's nothing to do with anything academic. You quote the Bible out of context, you put forward insane extra-Biblical claims that veer closer to an Americanization of the Bible than anything else. You annoy both Christians and non-Christians alike your views, so it's nothing to do with academics and 'Academia', which I know you use like a slur.

 

[AV1611VET]

It's nothing to do with anything academic.

Yes, it does.

When someone tells me Jacobean English wasn't spoken until the 17th century, then I take it that he learned that in school.

And if he wants to believe that on faith, then so be it.

But to ridicule someone who disagrees is, in my opinion, a form of intolerance.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Yes, it does.

When someone tells me Jacobean English wasn't spoken until the 17th century, then I take it that he learned that in school.

And if he wants to believe that on faith, then so be it.

But to ridicule someone who disagrees is, in my opinion, a form of intolerance.

It's going to be ridiculed because you have absolutely no reason to say that and there is no reason for anyone to accept what you say as factual since it's just... so dumb.

 

[ByTheSpirit]

Then that's a problem you need to bring up with your pastor/priest/bishop/whoever.

Lol your whole point has been proven invalid and I'm the one that needs to seek advice?

Isnt your thing here about why Christians can't accept evolution in place of creationism?

I've told you (as have others) why. You can either accept that or not, that's not my issue.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Lol your whole point has been proven invalid and I'm the one that needs to seek advice?

Isnt your thing here about why Christians can't accept evolution in place of creationism?

I've told you (as have others) why. You can either accept that or not, that's not my issue.

You didn't prove anything invalid at all. Some Christians accept that God made use of evolution to create the life on Earth that we see and have seen, and it doesn't conflict with their faith. While some Christians such as yourself are the opposite: you think that it will ruin your faith if the Bible is not 100% true.

My question isn't why Christians can't accept evolution in place of Creationism. My question was why God couldn't have used evolution to create life. It's in the first post in black and white. It's definitely not the question that you think I asked.

You claim that evolution and the Bible not being 100% true will wreck your faith. If you think that, then you need to talk with whoever is at your church and would listen.

 

[ByTheSpirit]

My question was why God couldn't have used evolution to create life.

Ok I misunderstood your question. My bad.

The answer is not one you'll appreciate anymore than the other responses you've received though.

Why didn't God use evolution?

Because He didn't want to.

When given a choice to choose between two or more items, a person will decide on whichever one best pleases their will in that moment. Usually. There may be some other reason for the decision, such as social obligations, dietary restrictions, budget constraints, whatever. But usually the decision comes down to the will.

God's will was to create us, so as to demonstrate His power and divine nature.

That's your answer for the why.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

My question was why God couldn't have used evolution to create life.

Ok I misunderstood your question. My bad.

The answer is not one you'll appreciate anymore than the other responses you've received though.

Why didn't God use evolution?

Because He didn't want to.

When given a choice to choose between two or more items, a person will decide on whichever one best pleases their will in that moment. Usually. There may be some other reason for the decision, such as social obligations, dietary restrictions, budget constraints, whatever. But usually the decision comes down to the will.

God's will was to create us, so as to demonstrate His power and divine nature.

That's your answer for the why.

I'll accept that as an answer, under the caveat that you are seeing God as a human-like being when He is not human. He can literally do whatever He wants, however He wants, which then raises the further of question of "Why couldn't He?" But the answer above would work for that question equally well, so that's fine.

 

[AV1611VET]

It's going to be ridiculed because you have absolutely no reason to say that ...

Or maybe I do.

... and there is no reason for anyone to accept what you say as factual ...

That's the beauty of it.

They don't have to.

I'm just guessing.

... since it's just... so dumb.

I'm going to take a guess and say that you also think that, one day the whole world is one language, and the next day they're all speaking about five different languages.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

I mean, we can probably leave human evolution aside for now and just focus on evolution in general. But still, why would it be impossible for God to use evolution to create the life that we see and have seen on this earth?

Can't leave human evolution aside when addressing this subject. We are the center of God's creation.

 

[SavedByGrace3]

The challenge for Christian's is the evolution of man. Linking a common ancestry with primates , an animal, goes against biblical truth that man was made from the dust of the earth in the image of God. Evolution would need to be redefined and clarified.
Blessings.

That issue is solved when you realize that the creation of Adam in the garden was a separate event from what happened in Genesis 1. The "earth men" of Genesis 1 evolved from the "beasts" of day 6, and then the "gods" (or powers) saw these "earth men" and made, or "improved," them to be in their image. These beings, I believe, did not have spirits in the same way Adam did. When Adam and Eve were removed from the garden, they mixed with these privative "earth men" and that is what we have now.
As far as the dust of the earth, if you read Gen 1, you will see that God commanded the earth (dust) to "bring forth" the beasts of the field. His word empowered the earth to do just that. So it is Biblical to say all creatures, including "earth man" came from the dust of the earth, and evolution was the process of going from point a to point z. We all, including the beasts and Adam, come from the dust.

 

[AV1611VET]

The "earth men" of Genesis 1 evolved from the "beasts" of day 6, and then the "gods" (or powers) saw these "earth men" and made, or "improved," them to be in their image.

That's kinda far-fetched, don't you think?

 

[Maria Billingsley]

That issue is solved when you realize that the creation of Adam in the garden was a separate event from what happened in Genesis 1. The "earth men" of Genesis 1 evolved from the "beasts" of day 6, and then the "gods" (or powers) saw these "earth men" and made, or "improved," them to be in their image. These beings, I believe, did not have spirits in the same way Adam did. When Adam and Eve were removed from the garden, they mixed with these privative "earth men" and that is what we have now.
As far as the dust of the earth, if you read Gen 1, you will see that God commanded the earth (dust) to "bring forth" the beasts of the field. His word empowered the earth to do just that. So it is Biblical to say all creatures, including "earth man" came from the dust of the earth, and evolution was the process of going from point a to point z. We all, including the beasts and Adam, come from the dust.

My point: Dust to man not dust to primate then to man.

 

[dlamberth]

Why is it not possible for God to have used evolution to create the different lifeforms that we see in the world today and what wee have seen in the past and fossils of?

As this Creation actually shows us in the geology of the earth as well as life forms uncovered, what's presented in your question IS how I undersand how God creates new life forms.

 

[AV1611VET]

As this Creation actually shows us in the geology of the earth as well as life forms uncovered, what's presented in your question IS how I undersand how God creates new life forms.

With a little help from academia as well, I take it?

 

[dlamberth]

With a little help from academia as well, I take it?

And as you know, I very much honor the scientist who have open the windows into how God creates new life forms.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Or maybe I do.

That's the beauty of it.

They don't have to.

I'm just guessing.

These two statements do kind of contradict each other.

I'm going to take a guess and say that you also think that, one day the whole world is one language, and the next day they're all speaking about five different languages.

Actually, I don't. I don't believe that the world had only one singular language before the other languages came about. That whole idea is a 'just-so' made by people trying to explain the world when they only had the barest of information about the world.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Can't leave human evolution aside when addressing this subject. We are the center of God's creation.

Since I was only talking about God's creation in general, not human evolution specifically, then we can kind of leave it aside.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I can only remind you , you are posting on a science, not faith forum.

Scientific precision matters, my response Was a scientific response.

As I also point out that in absence of definition , saying God could have used evolution ( undefined ) to produce lifeforms ( undefined). it is a safe statement which cannot be challenged because of imprecision.
But THAT is the part of my post that IS unscientific waffle.

It’s The rest you reject was the proper answer!

if you think life has a soul, evolution cannot be the answer to life, so God cannot have used it.QED.

Oh, mate, I do not care what you have to say at all. You're offering nothing to the thread and are in no way at all answering the OP question in the slightest. Not even making the attempt to answer it.

You just waffle. That's all you do.

 

[Larniavc]

The problem is evolution implies death.

It might imply it but evolution does not require for things to die. Only that there is reproduction with error.