GodSaves said:
Sure we each choose, but some worry about those who they think are choosing the wrong belief. Don't you agree?
This is beside the point, for you're assuming that to have concern for unwise choices is to have wisdom. Yet, clearly one can easily find people who "worry" about your choices as sincerely as you worry about theirs, be they Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, or Muslims.
And creationists who worry about theistic evolutionists putting some faith in men by believing theories men came up with to be true.
Do you believe that all science is invented? For example, do you believe that genetics really exist, or that gravity exists? If so, why?
Where else with the theistic evolutionists be lead, that is what creationists worry about.
You're assuming that any concept which can be used negatively should not be used at all. Yet, clearly man has used a lot of very valuable things for sinful means - including scripture. Your argument is, oddly enough, very similiar to that of gun control advocates, which is that guns are too dangerous to serve any good or safe purpose.
Creationism leads one to the Bible,
Were this to be true, we should be able to find nonchristian creationists. That is, we should be able to find scientists who believe all of the scientific tenets of creationism, but still reject God's existence, or at the very least have never read Genesis in any form. But no such person exists. Creationism doesn't lead to the Bible; it starts with the Bible. But it does so by applying secular assumptions upon scripture (more on that later).
Creationists don't have Moses here to talk with to understand Genesis. But we have scientists here to tell us.
For the most part, creationist "experts" are neither scientists nor biologists. In my experience, if creationists have any schooling, it's in fields like engineering, mathematics, or computer science.
You know some Glory is taken away from God by TE's. It is relatively easy to see. TE's and others with a belief in evolution give much credit to man for their theories on evolution.
You'll have to provide evidence for this. If anything, the byproduct of evolutionary theory is less credit for man as a species, not more. And, in fact, it is my belief that a primary motive for belief in creationism is in fact ego; it is far more flattering to believe that God created us instantly, than it is to believe that our emergence was designed as a long process wherein we evolved from primates.
As for "glory taken away from God," that's a subjective view. It's akin to saying that certain kinds of worship take away God's glory; different people get different meaning out of different styles of worship. Just because you find evolution to be less awesome, that doesn't mean that God feels that way. And it doesn't mean that evolution must therefore be false.
Because TE's say God created by evolution, but it took man to figure it out through the creation.
Out of curiosity, do you apply the same degree if scrutiny to doctors? Few experts are more notorious for "taking credit" for their expertise, yet I'm willing to bet that when your doctor tells you that you have an infection and you need a perscription, you don't hesitate to take those pills and schedule a follow up exam.
But based on your theory above, you should not ever listen to any expert who does not immediately credit God for their abilities or as the source of their knowledge. Which would mean that you'd have to refuse the services of just about anyone and everyone, be they your dry cleaner, your car mechanic, your dentist or doctor, or your boss.
In short, your suggestion for everyday living is impossible.
Does evolution ever talk about God?
If you have to ask this question, then you don't understand how science works. Science is not about relying on faith or assumptions. It's about evidence. In order to verify a hypothesis, a scientist must be willing to consider the possibility that the result they expect will not be the result they get.
And besides, how exactly do you expect scientists to carry out "talking about God"? Should technical reports include prayers midway through each paragraph? If a scientist is dissecting a frog or using a miscroscope, at what point should he or she begin to talk about God?
You will initially want to respond to me saying I am wrong. I am confused. I don't understand. I speak foolishly, and I dillusional. But who is to say I am.
Based on that, who is to say that anyone is wrong about anything?
Will God count me wrong if I am wrong because I went to the Bible to understand the beginning?
Plenty of people "go to the Bible" with the wrong motives, and plenty of people come away from the Bible with a significant misunderstanding of scruipture.
Will God count you wrong if you are wrong because you went to men to understand the beginning?
A false dilemma. At some point, someone taught you what you now believe about the Bible. Therefore, it could just as easily be said that you go to men to understand the beginning, too.
Think for a moment, could this be something Satan could use as a tool to confuse and derail Christians? Is Satan really this smart, this much of a deceiver?
What if creationism is satan's tool? After all, plenty of people have been led away from God because they've been told that believing creationism is a requirement for accepting Christ.
Do you think glory is taken away from God, when it is viewed that God created matter so man can eventually created himself. Evolution teaches not of God creating man, but man created himself through billions of years.
Where do you get that idea? I've never heard anyone claim that man created himself.
You are so aware of who and what Satan does, then why do you sin? If you know how to spot him why do you sin? Or maybe you think you don't.
This is a straw man. At no point has he claimed that he doesn't sin. Instead of focusing on what he might believe later in life, focus on what he actually believes now. And the possibilities of his future beliefs are as impossible to calculate for him as they are for you.
It is more impressive to me that God can just say something and a man appears, then it taking billions of years of trying to perfect itself.
This is akin to saying that a rose is prettier than a daffodil. It's your emotional opinion; others would disagree with you. And this is obviously not about which view is most popular.
The God that I have come to know and love does not make mistakes to get it right. When the thinks it, it shall come to pass. Not billions of years later. But maybe that verse in the Bible isn't suppose to be read literally. Yah, sure.
What you need to understand is that the concept of literalism is fairly new. For many generations, Jews and Christians read Genesis allegorically. They did not assume that the text was meant literally, for theirs was an eastern culture. And eastern cultures traditionally do not focus on linear thought the way european cultures do. So all of our grappling over each and every line of scripture and its connection to the other passages misses the point. The original scribes did not write it that way. That's why scripture includes two creation stories; they did not look at it as though only one must be true. They looked at it as though both were equally spiritual, and therefore both deserved inclusion.
You see, creationism is by and large an American anxiety. There's a significant creationist population in Australia, too, but our country is the really only one that wrestles with it so. Christians in other nations tend not treat evolution as a threat to their faith. And, more importantly, it's worth your while to consider the fact that it's almost impossible to find a Jewish creationist. This should tell you a lot about how Genesis is supposed to be read; if the Jews don't insist upon literalism, where does our insistence upon it come from?
The answer is that it came from us. Man invented creationism. For centuries, Christians believed in creationism only because there was no better theory (that, and the cultural confusion over scriptural intent that occurred when Christianity took over Europe). And, in fact, in many Christian nations, Darwin's theory did not cause much of a theological backlash. But in America, it did. That's because American Protestants have a long history of rejecting that which is new, whatever it may be.
Anyhow, about a hundred years ago or so, Christians in America began to insist on creationism as a requirement for belief. And they began to invent proofs for it.
