Christian Evolutionists....

[Jerry Smith]

I predict that you will find them divided into three groups:
Group 1) will not feel that the Biblical account of Eve is meant as a literal-retelling of an historical event by God and not by man.
Group 2) will feel that they must choose between science and God (or selectively deny science depending entirely on which parts they fail to resolve according to their religious views).
Group 3) will explain Eve as a special miracle, while still acknowledging the factual account of human evolution. (in much the same way that Lazarus was a special miracle, though medical science still carries a factual understanding about how life works, and when and why it is fundamentally over). Those in this position will tend to see Genesis 1 as largely metaphorical, even if they accept a literal reading of the Eve - rib...

Groups 1 & 2 have shown up!! I was right on 2 out of 3! I'll be interested to see if anyone comes around who wants to be in group 3.

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by npetreley
I trust the Bible. So I don't need to harmonize the Bible with anything but itself. Simple as that.

And you have the gall to accuse scientists of a-priori commitments!

Pot...kettle...black.

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by Jerry Smith

Groups 1 & 2 have shown up!! I was right on 2 out of 3! I'll be interested to see if anyone comes around who wants to be in group 3.

Honestly, it wouldn't totally shock me to find that God gave a soul to one homo sapiens, then did something weird with a rib... but it *WOULD* shock me to find that God made Adam, then made creatures, and was then in any way *SURPRISED* by Adam's request for a companion. Honestly, Genesis 2 seems to read like a story of some generic god (lowercase g) who predates the recognition of an *omniscient* supreme being; the God portrayed there seems to be surprised by Adam's needs.

(The really surprising part is that He didn't just say "you must not have gotten a good look at the sheep.") <--- JOKE!

 

[Didaskomenos]

You want to know what I think about the origin of Eve? "Eve" was most likely a character meant to represent women in general. Some Christian evolutionists believe that at some point, God descended upon a man and woman and made them a little more than just evolved apes, and they were who came to be immortalized and mythologized as the pair known as Adam and Eve.

I don't think it would have taken any "special miracle" to create Eve - just an ordinary miracle. By that I mean that I think that every facet of evolution was guided by God, and it took no deviation from God's methodology to create woman.

 

[Joe V.]

(The really surprising part is that He didn't just say "you must not have gotten a good look at the sheep.") <--- JOKE!

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!

- Joe

 

[Plan 9]

Originally posted by npetreley


I've read enough posts from evolutionists now that I think I can take a crack at it.&nbsp;
You see, to the evolutionist, it makes no sense that an omnipotent G~d would create man and woman innocent and place them in a paradise, and that we have only their sin to blame for our the curse which is responsible for many of the ills of today....

Nevertheless, it is still our fault that we are the way we are becuase G~d watched us evolve free will. After that, we chose to evolve in an inferior way. And as punishment for choosing to evolve in an inferior way, G~d will someday pour out His wrath upon the earth.&nbsp;

Wowser, Nick! I could have SWORN that I didn't believe this AT ALL!

Thanks for straightening me out on this.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by LiveFreeOrDie

And you have the gall to accuse scientists of a-priori commitments!

Pot...kettle...black.

Faith is not objective, nor does it claim to be. Science claims to be objective, yet most scientists DO have an a-priori commitment to material causes, which biases their interpretations of the data. That's a very big difference.

By the way, that's you queue to start defending this a-priori commitment by saying science cannot detect or consider supernatural causes. Been there, done that, got the T-shirt.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Plan 9

Wowser, Nick! I could have SWORN that I didn't believe this AT ALL!

Thanks for straightening me out on this.

You're quite welcome! If there's anything else you'd like to know about what you believe, just give me a shout.

 

[Iron Maiden]

Just amazing, evolution is not complete, it just happens that some of the findings appear to fit the definition and science of the evolution concept.

Evolutionary theories and sciences have many missing fossils and data. However it is the most likely theory from a LIMITED human intellectual standpoint, but there is much more.

I've seen the data and fossil records and all the rigamarol, I'll take the documented account of the holy bible regarding our creation, and not the imperfect theory of evolution.

I will not deny that species are evolving to adapt to environments and global situations, but these are minute evolutions and cannot be compared to the literal document of our creation.

I hope I'm not the only one that thinks that humans evolving from a group of cells, then to mammals including every species before becoming human is very silly sounding.

 

[Plan 9]

Where am I??! Where is everyone else??! What planet IS this, Nick??!! What happened to my other sock and the cap to my felt tip pen????!!!!!!

 

[Iron Maiden]

Originally posted by LiveFreeOrDie


True, but we actually happen to have evidence that evolution occurred. Big difference.

Incomplete evidence yes, not 100% proven, actually probably just a coincidence, it is easy to mold science around an idea or theory.

 

[chickenman]

actually its not easy at all

try molding the evidence to fit creationism, it can't be done.

 

[Iron Maiden]

Yes it can, it is possible there are species evolving and adapting to fit environmental changes as we speak, but we cannot use observed minute mutations or changes within organisms to speculate on total evolution.

Observed minute changes can be consistent with creation.

The fact that the Universe is expanding suggests it had a beginning, there is as good a chance the Universe was created as there is that the Universe always existed, but even the big bang would be more consistent with creation, because of cause happening without a cause.

 

[chickenman]

well of course you can just ignore the evidence that creationism can't explain

 

[npetreley]

Are you asking me?

Originally posted by Plan 9
Where am I??!

You're right there.

Originally posted by Plan 9
Where is everyone else??!

We're right here.

Originally posted by Plan 9
What planet IS this, Nick??!!

The one we're on.

Originally posted by Plan 9
What happened to my other sock

That one is a little more difficult to explain, so I hope you'll bear with me.

As Lewontin pointed out, evolutionists interpret evidence with an a-priori commitment to material causes. This means that evolutionists cannot even entertain the possibility that the evidence falsifies evolution, because to falsify evolution would require that we got here by something other than material causes, which is prohibited by their a-priori commitment.

Even if evolutionists convince themselves that microevolution or speciation could eventually lead to the macroevolution that would account for species today, we've observed enough of what goes on around us to know that kind of evolution could not possibly have occurred quickly enough for the earth to be anything younger than a billion years or more. Therefore evolutionists must also have an a-priori commitment to believing the earth is very old. The exact age is irrelevant, but there is a threshhold of credibility they cannot cross, and that threshhold has gotten bigger as they've learned more about biology and genetics.

This restricts the possible interpretations of evidence even further, because evolutionists cannot ever "discover" that the earth or many of the fossils it contains are younger than millions or billions of years old. That would mean the earth wasn't around long enough for evolution to occur, which means they would have to consider supernatural causes, which is ruled out by their a-priori commitment to material causes.

Then one day an evolutionist calculated exactly how long it would take for abiogenesis to occur, and concluded that life could not possibly have started until so far into the future that the universe would be so cold and dead that it couldn't support the life produced by abiogenesis. So he reasoned that life was planted here by aliens. But then he had to explain how the abiogenesis occurred for the aliens. In the long run, the effort he had to put in to explain away this problem was so massive, and involved so much re-entrant logic that the reasoning collapsed in upon itself, creating a momentary black hole, through which your sock was sucked into infinity.

Originally posted by Plan 9

and the cap to my felt tip pen????!!!!!!

Sorry, that was my fault. I forgot to put it back on the pen when I was done using it.

 

[Iron Maiden]

Originally posted by chickenman
well of course you can just ignore the evidence that creationism can't explain

No, the fact that the world is evolving, everything is evolving, God never said things would not evolve, A creationist view like mine does not ignore the evidence, but the evidence is vague at best, just fossils with imperfect carbon 14 dating and half life decay methods, those are formulas and not observations, the science is too young to be called FACT. So the evidence is murky, especially so called evidence that man evolved from a cluster of cells.

So far the observed evidence that has been found and imperfect lab experiments, one cannot rule out creationism based on this young science.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Explanation: It is a story.

If it is absolutly literal what happend to the speicies of snake that could talk and was obviously smarter than humans?

And obvoiusly snakes eat dirt because that is one of the punishments given them.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by LewisWildermuth
If it is absolutly literal what happend to the speicies of snake that could talk and was obviously smarter than humans?

They became evolutionists.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Originally posted by npetreley


They became evolutionists.

Ahh So evolutionist craw on their bellies and eat dirt?

Seriously was it a litteral snake orwas it satan?

 

[OldBadfish]

It was Satan who had taken the shape of a serpent. We can't understand or comprehend everything that happened in the OT, just like we can't prove evolution 100%