Creation or Evolution, does it matter?

[Erik Nelson]

Because 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

 

[Erik Nelson]

please consider that the Bible dates Eden (Gen 2)...

not Creation (Gen 1)

moreover, when God "creates" man, that verb implies the passage of some amount of time...

is that amount of time an ordinary amount? Or an extra ordinary Biblical amount?

if God's creative act takes a BIBLICAL amount of time, then the text could be considered consistent with current science

 

[Danielwright2311]

2 Peter 3:8

That one day is a thousand days to god not us, we are still just a 24 hour day my good friend.

 

[Erik Nelson]

That one day is a thousand days to god not us, we are still just a 24 hour day my good friend.

God sets the rules for all of us?

 

[juvenissun]

Maybe the diversity of life we see was created in the most basic form and allowed to unfurl and develop over the millenia.

That IS creation.

 

[juvenissun]

The majority of christians believe that evolution is the way god created things.

Absolutely not. If evolution were true, then there is no room for creation.

 

[Speedwell]

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.

 

[juvenissun]

How so? Can God not use evolution as a tool? You seemed to imply the possibility in your response to JimmyD in post #55.

Tool, is fine. But not the same as origin.

 

[Jimmy D]

That IS creation.

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.

 

[Speedwell]

Tool, is fine. But not the origin.

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

Because just as it is possible to see a naturalistic evolution as God's tool, so is it also possible to regard a naturalistic abiogenesis in the same light.

It is necessary to avoid a serious metaphysical error to do so, however. The error is, to assume that identifying a natural cause for a phenomenon rules out or denies a simultaneous divine cause.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That IS creation.

Aka theistic evolution.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Absolutely not

Absolutely yes.

If evolution were true, then there is no room for creation.

Not according to about a billion catholics.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Tool, is fine. But not the same as origin.

You're not talking about the origins of life itself, are you?

Don't tell me that after all this time and after SO MANY people clarified it for you, you still don't understand that "The origins of species" is not the same as "The origins of life"?

 

[Danielwright2311]

God sets the rules for all of us?

Yes sir he does

 

[juvenissun]

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.

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".

 

[juvenissun]

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

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.

 

[Speedwell]

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".

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.

 

[Speedwell]

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.

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.

 

[Speedwell]

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".

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.

 

[Astrophile]

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...

By comparing the number of my ancestors back through time with the total population of Europe, I estimate that my most recent common ancestors with these two human beings were born no longer ago than 1200 AD.

If I have to admit to being related to Hitler and Himmler, then I have no reason to object to being descended from apes.