- Aug 6, 2017
- 5,156
- 1,663
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
2 Peter 3:8Because it says so right in the Bible, it says then the sun set and there was another day, one whole day, a 24 hour day.
2 Peter 3:8
God sets the rules for all of us?That one day is a thousand days to god not us, we are still just a 24 hour day my good friend.
Maybe the diversity of life we see was created in the most basic form and allowed to unfurl and develop over the millenia.
The majority of christians believe that evolution is the way god created things.
How so? Can God not use evolution as a tool? You seemed to imply the possibility in your response to JimmyD in post #55.Absolutely not. If evolution were true, then there is no room for creation.
How so? Can God not use evolution as a tool? You seemed to imply the possibility in your response to JimmyD in post #55.
That IS creation.
The theory of evolution says nothing about origins. It is not intended to, as the study of the origin of life is the subject of a different scientific discipline, called abiogenesis. But that is just a quibbleTool, is fine. But not the origin.
Absolutely not
If evolution were true, then there is no room for creation.
Tool, is fine. But not the same as origin.
God sets the rules for all of us?
Maybe "If creation is right, then evolution is wrong" isn't true then? Maybe evolution is part of the method of creation?
Edit: whoops I was a bit slow there.... I agree with Speedwell.
The theory of evolution says nothing about origins. It is not intended to, as the study of the origin of life is the subject of a different scientific discipline, called abiogenesis. But that is just a quibble
Well, the origin is not "evolution" Evolution requires the existence of a self-replicating life form. Getting from non-living materials to the first self-replicating life form is a process called abiogenesis. If you want to believe that God manipulated natural forces to bring abiogenesis about, feel free. There is presently no science which contradicts it; that's what Theistic Evolutionists generally believe, anyway. My personal opinion (and that of my Church) is that God had no need to manipulate the natural forces that He created and sustains with divine providence. He created too well to have to tinker with them.It is a two step argument.
First, the origin has to be either creation or evolution. No third choice.
Second, the development could be: 1. continue to create; 2. create plus evolve, or 3 evolve only.
In this thread, we are talking about the origin. If you agree that creation is the way to begin, then you would be labelled a "creationist".
There is no need for a designation of "species" until there are at least two self-replicating life forms and man is around to invent the concept.What is the origin of the very first "species"? Is a cell a species? How do we get a cell from non-cell? Is that still called abiogenesis?
The process of evolution as we know it has numerous holes, no matter where you start to look at it.
Technically, that's true. The problem is, defined that way, the term "creationist" would apply to any theist and would not be very useful. That is why in this forum, and pretty generally, the term "creationist" is reserved for a biblical creationist.It is a two step argument.
First, the origin has to be either creation or evolution. No third choice.
Second, the development could be: 1. continue to create; 2. create plus evolve, or 3 evolve only.
In this thread, we are talking about the origin. If you agree that creation is the way to begin, then you would be labelled a "creationist".
Fair enough - what's in a name? [/shakespeare] The main reason for using 'Ape', 'Great Ape', etc., is to make life easier for the less taxonomically aware who have difficulty distinguishing between Hominoids and Hominids.
But plenty of people seem to get exercised about whether we are apes, or descended from apes, or are related to apes or monkeys, and so-on. Some of the more creationist-minded don't seem to mind being called a mammal, but find being called an ape insulting. Go figure...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?