Another thing I don't understand about the creationist position...

[BNR32FAN]

Because they are demonstrably wrong.

In fact modern creationists are afraid to state their beliefs clearly because they are so easier to shown to be wrong.

Oh like Christ’s resurrection? So you can’t believe in that either?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not being accepted does not mean that the account isn’t true. Moses was obviously an eyewitness to the Exodus events.

Only in the Bible.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Why? Let's not get into other beliefs here. This is not the place to debate other parts of the Bible.

No if we can’t believe something because science says it’s impossible then let’s by all means explore the full implications of that statement.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh like Christ’s resurrection? So you can’t believe in that either?

This is the wrong place for that discussion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No if we can’t believe something because science says it’s impossible then let’s by all means explore the full implications of that statement.

I would like to discuss thus. But I don't want to get this thread closed down.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

In general, it seems the main difference between humans and animals is that God gave us this nature so we continued to grow in a direction that is distinctive of humans.

The teachings passed down that seem restrictive and annoying to be told appear to be an attempt to avoid regression back to beasts.

In the garden there were two humans. One was taken from outside the garden, and God breathed life into clay, and then divided the genders making two though they were still one in another sense in the beginning.

Since the first two humans only had sons, then it would stand to reason they might have had children with evolved beings that looked similar that came from beasts.

So this is why it is a struggle to "be human" since there's so much animal in us.

Just a thought I had, thanks for the inspiration, maybe someone will make it into a book.

 

[Hammster]

Only in the Bible.

Of course.

 

[BNR32FAN]

This is the wrong place for that discussion.

I think it’s the perfect place because the two are entangled.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Of course.

So perhaps that could be discussed in the apologetics forum.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think it’s the perfect place because the two are entangled.

Since there are countless Christians that accept evolution, probably the majority when one looks worldwide it appears that they are not.

 

[BNR32FAN]

This is the wrong place for that discussion.

Just keep in mind friend that the Lord said that the wisdom of the world is foolishness to God and vice versa.

 

[BNR32FAN]

This is a non-sequitur.

oh but it’s completely relevant to the discussion. I mean surely your not going to be wishy washy about science having to coincide with God’s word in order to believe it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

In general, it seems the main difference between humans and animals is that God gave us this nature so we continued to grow in a direction that is distinctive of humans.

The teachings passed down that seem restrictive and annoying to be told appear to be an attempt to avoid regression back to beasts.

In the garden there were two humans. One was taken from outside the garden, and God breathed life into clay, and then divided the genders making two though they were still one in another sense in the beginning.

Since the first two humans only had sons, then it would stand to reason they might have had children with evolved beings that looked similar that came from beasts.

So this is why it is a struggle to "be human" since there's so much animal in us.

Just a thought I had, thanks for the inspiration, maybe someone will make it into a book.

Where other people came from is a huge problem with the Garden of Eden story. It might be better not to take it literally at all. It still works as a morality tale.

 

[pitabread]

I wouldn’t call a hand full of bones numerous. All they have are a few unconfirmed theories based on assumptions.

There are numerous fossils. IIRC, fossil hominids number into the thousands. And collectively there are millions of discovered fossils of prior life on Earth.

Insofar as "unconfirmed theories" goes, the theory of evolution is well documented by various lines of real-world evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Just keep in mind friend that the Lord said that the wisdom of the world is foolishness to God and vice versa.

Misinterpreting the Bible, at best, does not help you.

Let's try to concentrate on the science.

 

[pitabread]

It seems a lot of the "textbook evolution" taught in schools is outdated already - but the debate is against this strawman theory that no one really believes in anymore.

That's what it looks like anyway.

Most creationists on this forum tend to be older (e.g. in their 60's or older). Which suggests their schooling re: evolution, if they even had any, would have been around 50 years ago. And public school teaching are usually decades out of date to begin with.

Hence why a lot of knowledge of evolution we see from creationists is probably at least 70+ years out of date.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Since there are countless Christians that accept evolution, probably the majority when one looks worldwide it appears that they are not.

Lol wow I’m really sensing some major crawfishing going on when we pit science against the resurrection, which I am glad to see that people will reject scientific facts when it comes to Christ’s resurrection. I just think that if that is the case here then a 6 day creation shouldn’t be completely implausible then.

 

[Hammster]

So perhaps that could be discussed in the apologetics forum.

I don’t see why. Moses talks of creation, and this is the Creation & Evolution forum.

 

[pitabread]

intelligent design is not typically the only evidence Christians have. It’s typically also supported by life experiences and documentation of eyewitness testimonies dating back to 3,500 years ago.

Which has nothing to do with whether or not God used evolution as a means of creating/diversifying species.

 

[Speedwell]

Well I surely hope that the scientists can figure out how to resurrect a body after it’s been dead for three days for your sake my friend. I’d hate to think that you can’t believe in Christ’s resurrection because scientists say it’s impossible.

Oh my goodness! The 'dead guy' argument. Logically faulty and based on an Arianist christology. I thought creationists had given that one up finally.