Creation or Evolution from the Creationism Section

[WingsOfEagles07]

Mallon, I think this is the right forum, if it is not please correct me. I looked at the links and could not move the thread because I didn't know which one to look at to move it.

I will start out with a little bit of what I know, not all of it at once because it will only cause confusion.

Evolutionists obviously believed we as a species have evolved over billions of years. If you can deevolutionize the ancestors of the human species all the way back to the very first living form of life this brings up abiogenesis which I know is not evolution but it is linked and evolution could not have been possible without the first living organism. I have to raise some questions about the abiogenesis belief. How did the first organism obtain food over the course of billions of years whenever there is no food sources? If it did eat, what did it eat and how did it eat? Evolutionists teach that the eye has evolved over time, how the organism see to know where to get the food and how does it even have knowledge to see by perception if the brain also evolved like evolutionists teach? If the brain evolved and the eyes evolved also, how can the two be linked together without one malfunctioning the other since knowledge would not be possible without having a higher state of being inputting that knowledge?

Now even us as human beings have "now" reliable senses. Everyone reading this post I am sure trusts their senses to be reliable. But in a world where there is no GOD how can truth be justified as a manner of purpose? If GOD is not real and we do not have any superior being to be subject unto, that makes us subject unto no one but ourselves therefore truth cannot be justified because what may be truth to you may not be truth to me, What I see could be a pink flower but to someone else they may see it as green. How do we know what we see is justified just by saying something? I can say I have evidence for Creation but If I had no higher being to relate it to, then Creationism would be worthless because I could not on any basis prove something if everything is relative according to everyone's presuppositions. Evolutionists say we have no purpose and there is no GOD, so how can we know evolution is true if they inconsistently rely on their senses without any foundation of believing so other than the "good sense" of carnality? They arbitrarily dismiss the reliability of their senses, which makes it fallacious with the fallacy of bifurcation by not taking into consideration of other possible ways that the universe and life could have formed but instead ignorantly choose to demonstrate evolution as fact because Scientists say this or that by assumption.

I have more to say, but I dont want to say to much too soon. You know what I mean? Thank You! God Bless You!

Matthew

 

[Melethiel]

Evolutionists teach that the eye has evolved over time, how the organism see to know where to get the food and how does it even have knowledge to see by perception if the brain also evolved like evolutionists teach?

There are plenty of critters that don't have eyes (or a brain) and yet find food. Check out amoebas, for instance. If you look throughout the animal kingdom, you can find a perfect gradation of various stages of development of the neural tube.

Now even us as human beings have "now" reliable senses. Everyone reading this post I am sure trusts their senses to be reliable. But in a world where there is no GOD how can truth be justified as a manner of purpose? If GOD is not real and we do not have any superior being to be subject unto, that makes us subject unto no one but ourselves therefore truth cannot be justified because what may be truth to you may not be truth to me, What I see could be a pink flower but to someone else they may see it as green. How do we know what we see is justified just by saying something?

That's philosophy. Has nothing to do with evolution.

Evolutionists say we have no purpose and there is no GOD

Nope. Radical atheists say there is no God. Some radical atheists happen to accept evolution. However, the two do not HAVE to go together. Science, by definition, is agnostic - it neither affirms nor denies the existence of God, because since God is outside of Nature, He cannot be measured by science.

 

[Uphill Battle]

I have nothing to add.

(just wanted to say hi to Mel.)

Hi Mel.

 

[Mallon]

You are indeed in the right place, WOE07. Thanks for posting this someplace where we can discuss it openly.

I have to raise some questions about the abiogenesis belief. How did the first organism obtain food over the course of billions of years whenever there is no food sources? If it did eat, what did it eat and how did it eat?

These are great questions, but they don't particularly cast doubt on the notion of abiogenesis. Technically, they're logical fallacies (arguments from ignorance). Just because we don't know all the details of how something happened doesn't mean it didn't happen.
Still, these are good questions. I can't claim to know the answers because I don't study abiogenesis, but I can tell you that early 'food' was likely some macromolecule and that 'digestion' was likely some simple catabolic process. All this would have occurred on a scale that we're not very familiar with.

BTW, I agree that abiogenesis is separate from evolution, so if your beef is with evolution, let's not dwell on it. It's a red herring.

Evolutionists teach that the eye has evolved over time, how the organism see to know where to get the food and how does it even have knowledge to see by perception if the brain also evolved like evolutionists teach? If the brain evolved and the eyes evolved also, how can the two be linked together without one malfunctioning the other since knowledge would not be possible without having a higher state of being inputting that knowledge?

Like Melethiel said, lots of organisms can obtain food without eyes. Think of sponges. Think of single-celled organisms. Think of clams. There are tens of thousands of examples. They gather food through various means, like chemoreception or through their sense of touch. Many of them don't even have what we would call a 'brain'.
Your objection here really isn't a problem for evolution.

Now even us as human beings have "now" reliable senses. Everyone reading this post I am sure trusts their senses to be reliable. But in a world where there is no GOD how can truth be justified as a manner of purpose? If GOD is not real and we do not have any superior being to be subject unto, that makes us subject unto no one but ourselves therefore truth cannot be justified because what may be truth to you may not be truth to me, What I see could be a pink flower but to someone else they may see it as green. How do we know what we see is justified just by saying something? I can say I have evidence for Creation but If I had no higher being to relate it to, then Creationism would be worthless because I could not on any basis prove something if everything is relative according to everyone's presuppositions. Evolutionists say we have no purpose and there is no GOD, so how can we know evolution is true if they inconsistently rely on their senses without any foundation of believing so other than the "good sense" of carnality? They arbitrarily dismiss the reliability of their senses, which makes it fallacious with the fallacy of bifurcation by not taking into consideration of other possible ways that the universe and life could have formed but instead ignorantly choose to demonstrate evolution as fact because Scientists say this or that by assumption.

This is all philosophy and theology and has nothing to do with the scientific evidence for evolution.
Besides, not all evolutionists are atheists. I'm a Christian who accepts evolution. So is Melethiel. Nearly 40% of evolutionists believe in God, and a majority of Christians around the world also accept evolution (see here: http://www.biologos.org/). So your entire line of reasoning here is flawed.

I have more to say, but I dont want to say to much too soon. You know what I mean? Thank You! God Bless You!

God bless. Looking forward to whatever else you might have to say.

 

[WingsOfEagles07]

You are indeed in the right place, WOE07. Thanks for posting this someplace where we can discuss it openly.


These are great questions, but they don't particularly cast doubt on the notion of abiogenesis. Technically, they're logical fallacies (arguments from ignorance). Just because we don't know all the details of how something happened doesn't mean it didn't happen.
Still, these are good questions. I can't claim to know the answers because I don't study abiogenesis, but I can tell you that early 'food' was likely some macromolecule and that 'digestion' was likely some simple catabolic process. All this would have occurred on a scale that we're not very familiar with.

BTW, I agree that abiogenesis is separate from evolution, so if your beef is with evolution, let's not dwell on it. It's a red herring.


Like Melethiel said, lots of organisms can obtain food without eyes. Think of sponges. Think of single-celled organisms. Think of clams. There are tens of thousands of examples. They gather food through various means, like chemoreception or through their sense of touch. Many of them don't even have what we would call a 'brain'.
Your objection here really isn't a problem for evolution.


This is all philosophy and theology and has nothing to do with the scientific evidence for evolution.
Besides, not all evolutionists are atheists. I'm a Christian who accepts evolution. So is Melethiel. Nearly 40% of evolutionists believe in God, and a majority of Christians around the world also accept evolution (see here: The BioLogos Forum). So your entire line of reasoning here is flawed.


God bless. Looking forward to whatever else you might have to say.

I dont have much to say to Mel because he/she barely posted anything lol.

You have got to understand the ways that organisms work that we have studied in the past 100 years may not have been the same back billions of years ago, but yet again how can you prove that abiogenesis happened to begin evolution? Two separate things but if you go backwards abiogenesis was the start so how can you prove the existence of something that no one knows about but only can make present assumptions that try to make up the past?

Whenever you talk about philosophy and theology you have got to understand that in order for evolution to be possible, one has to 'assume' their senses are reliable because if they did not what would be the sense in making a belief system that no one will believe if the senses cannot be trusted? I did not say this totally disproves evolution, but if the senses cannot be accounted for by evolutionists then how can we trust what they tell us if they cannot even account for what their senses tell them? If your senses were unreliable and you said to do this and that your plan would work, why would I trust you? I wouldn't because your senses were unreliable, I did not say your plan would not work, I just do no trust what you told me to do because you cannot account for your senses on a consistent rational basis without being arbitrary.

I know that there are a lot of christians in the world who believe in Evolution (Theistic Evolutionists). You have probably studied this, but evolution causes death before man but man brought death into the world how can both exist at the same time? Most people will say well, this is the spiritual side, or allegorical side, just so they can fit the belief of evolution in their somewhere. If this was just the spiritual side then why do we exactly die? If the wages of sin are death, what being sinned first to bring death? A molecular life form who had according to evolution no brain, no eyes, no capable working senses no knowledge of anything? Just because there are similarities in bone structure and in the DNA of certain animals does not mean it is the cause of evolution from any kind of ancestor. I mean what about the REAL transitional fossils not just the computerized or drawings of transitional fossils on Wikipedia.

God Bless You! If anyone feels the need to reply to any my posts feel free I will try my best to respond. Just to keep you guys updated, tomorrow Saturday at 11:00 am Eastern United States time, I will be running in a track meet, the Open 200m, 4x200m and the 4x100. I do not know when i will reply but I will whenever I get home.

Matthew

 

[Mallon]

You have got to understand the ways that organisms work that we have studied in the past 100 years may not have been the same back billions of years ago, but yet again how can you prove that abiogenesis happened to begin evolution? Two separate things but if you go backwards abiogenesis was the start so how can you prove the existence of something that no one knows about but only can make present assumptions that try to make up the past?

First, we can't "prove" anything in science. Science is about comparing competing hypotheses and rejecting those that do not stand up to the evidence. Whatever is left remaining is provisionally accepted as "true" for the time being. Therefore, we can only "disprove" things in science. No scientist has ever argued that abiogenesis is "proven".
Regardless, let's move on to talking about evolution because, as you yourself admit, regardless of whether life came about via natural, God-sustained processes or whether He poofed life into existence, none of this has any bearing on the veracity of evolution.

Whenever you talk about philosophy and theology you have got to understand that in order for evolution to be possible, one has to 'assume' their senses are reliable because if they did not what would be the sense in making a belief system that no one will believe if the senses cannot be trusted? I did not say this totally disproves evolution, but if the senses cannot be accounted for by evolutionists then how can we trust what they tell us if they cannot even account for what their senses tell them? If your senses were unreliable and you said to do this and that your plan would work, why would I trust you? I wouldn't because your senses were unreliable, I did not say your plan would not work, I just do no trust what you told me to do because you cannot account for your senses on a consistent rational basis without being arbitrary.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Are you saying that we cannot trust our senses? Jesus seemed to think we could trust our senses when he revealed himself to Thomas after his resurrection.
Also, evolution isn't a belief system. It's a scientific theory like any other. It is simply an explanation for what we see in nature. You wouldn't say that atomic theory or gravity theory are belief systems, too, would you?

I know that there are a lot of christians in the world who believe in Evolution (Theistic Evolutionists). You have probably studied this, but evolution causes death before man but man brought death into the world how can both exist at the same time? Most people will say well, this is the spiritual side, or allegorical side, just so they can fit the belief of evolution in their somewhere. If this was just the spiritual side then why do we exactly die? If the wages of sin are death, what being sinned first to bring death?

You should read some evolutionary creationist literature for answers to questions like these because it's clear that you haven't. Check out Denis Lamoureux's "I Love Jesus and I Accept Evolution" or the Biologos blog.

A molecular life form who had according to evolution no brain, no eyes, no capable working senses no knowledge of anything?

I'm not sure what you're asking here. The above isn't a complete sentence.

Just because there are similarities in bone structure and in the DNA of certain animals does not mean it is the cause of evolution from any kind of ancestor.

Why are chimpanzees more similar to humans than to any other form of life? Evolution explains this simple pattern. No other explanation does, particularly not special creation.

I mean what about the REAL transitional fossils not just the computerized or drawings of transitional fossils on Wikipedia.

What about them? I work with them for a living. And creation scientists like Drs. Todd Wood and Kurt Wise are starting to accept transitional fossils, too.

God Bless You! If anyone feels the need to reply to any my posts feel free I will try my best to respond. Just to keep you guys updated, tomorrow Saturday at 11:00 am Eastern United States time, I will be running in a track meet, the Open 200m, 4x200m and the 4x100.

Good luck!

 

[gluadys]

I dont have much to say to Mel because he/she barely posted anything lol.

You have got to understand the ways that organisms work that we have studied in the past 100 years may not have been the same back billions of years ago, but yet again how can you prove that abiogenesis happened to begin evolution? Two separate things but if you go backwards abiogenesis was the start so how can you prove the existence of something that no one knows about but only can make present assumptions that try to make up the past?

First, it is incorrect to say we can only make present assumptions. We can (and scientists do) test those assumptions (called hypotheses) to see if they are workable.

Second, even with all the testing out of hypotheses, it is not possible to prove that abiogenesis happened naturally. All that science can do is accumulate evidence that abiogenesis is possible. But even if we know it is possible, that doesn't mean God chose to use a possible natural means of creating the first life. God could still choose to create life supernaturally.

Third, and this is getting out of science into theology. It IS God's choice to do anything by either natural or supernatural means. Finding a natural explanation of how things happened should never be interpreted as meaning "therefore God did not do it." Here is where you have to ask yourself how much it matters to you how God chooses to do anything.

Obviously, God sometimes chooses to work outside of the framework of nature. Just as obviously, sometimes he chooses to work within the framework of nature. Consider the day that David killed Goliath, for example. Did David send the stone to its target through his skill, or did God supernaturally intervene to make sure it landed on Goliath's weak spot. Obviously we can't actually answer that question one way or the other. Nothing in the text suggests that a miracle occurred. But even if it was David's skill rather than miraculous guidance of the stone, David would affirm that God was with him that day. So really it doesn't matter. Whether Goliath's death was due to natural or supernatural causes, God had a part in it.

So does it matter if scientists find that a natural means of life emerging from non-life is possible. Natural or supernatural, God has a part in it anyway.

Whenever you talk about philosophy and theology you have got to understand that in order for evolution to be possible, one has to 'assume' their senses are reliable because if they did not what would be the sense in making a belief system that no one will believe if the senses cannot be trusted? I did not say this totally disproves evolution, but if the senses cannot be accounted for by evolutionists then how can we trust what they tell us if they cannot even account for what their senses tell them? If your senses were unreliable and you said to do this and that your plan would work, why would I trust you? I wouldn't because your senses were unreliable, I did not say your plan would not work, I just do no trust what you told me to do because you cannot account for your senses on a consistent rational basis without being arbitrary.

Yes, you do have to assume your senses are basically reliable. This is not a question specific to evolution or even to all of science, but to all of life. And the best answer I know is provided by Descartes ("I think, therefore I am"). Descartes chose to ascertain what he could be certain of by methodically doubting everything. Of, course this meant doubting the reliability of the senses. And his conclusion was that we can rely on the senses because we can rely on God who is benevolent and not a deceiver to provide us with senses that are reliable.

This doesn't mean we can't make mistakes. But whatever mistakes we make are not due to an inherent fallibility of the senses, but to careless use of the senses and the mind so that we draw premature conclusions from things when we have not studied them carefully. Such mistakes are correctible through further study.

Now does it matter if God gave us our senses through a supernatural act or through a natural process like evolution? Either way, God is still reliable, benevolent and not a deceiver. So either way we can count on our senses to be reliable as long as we use them carefully. And science, of course, is a method of studying nature carefully.

I know that there are a lot of christians in the world who believe in Evolution (Theistic Evolutionists). You have probably studied this, but evolution causes death before man but man brought death into the world how can both exist at the same time? Most people will say well, this is the spiritual side, or allegorical side, just so they can fit the belief of evolution in their somewhere. If this was just the spiritual side then why do we exactly die? If the wages of sin are death, what being sinned first to bring death? A molecular life form who had according to evolution no brain, no eyes, no capable working senses no knowledge of anything? Just because there are similarities in bone structure and in the DNA of certain animals does not mean it is the cause of evolution from any kind of ancestor. I mean what about the REAL transitional fossils not just the computerized or drawings of transitional fossils on Wikipedia.

This deserves a post of its own. Unfortunately, I have to run now, so I can't say anymore about it now. See you later.

 

[Chesterton]

These are great questions, but they don't particularly cast doubt on the notion of abiogenesis. Technically, they're logical fallacies (arguments from ignorance). Just because we don't know all the details of how something happened doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Instead of being logical fallacies, they are questions which raise logical difficulties: there had to be the need to eat, knowledge of need to eat, a physical way to eat, and something external to eat, and you had to have all four at once.

Still, these are good questions. I can't claim to know the answers because I don't study abiogenesis, but I can tell you that early 'food' was likely some macromolecule and that 'digestion' was likely some simple catabolic process. All this would have occurred on a scale that we're not very familiar with.

"Catabolic" is related to "devil" (Greek diabolos, and katabole= throwing down). (Hmm, there's some ammo for an imaginative creationist. )

 

[Mallon]

Instead of being logical fallacies, they are questions which raise logical difficulties: there had to be the need to eat, knowledge of need to eat, a physical way to eat, and something external to eat, and you had to have all four at once.

I don't think things are as cut-and-dry as you're trying to make them. Amoebas don't have brains, so can they "know" to eat? Or do they feed passively? I don't think all these things had to appear at once as you seem to presume.

"Catabolic" is related to "devil" (Greek diabolos, and katabole= throwing down). (Hmm, there's some ammo for an imaginative creationist. )

Makes about as much sense as most other creationist arguments I've heard.

 

[gluadys]

I know that there are a lot of christians in the world who believe in Evolution (Theistic Evolutionists). You have probably studied this, but evolution causes death before man but man brought death into the world how can both exist at the same time? Most people will say well, this is the spiritual side, or allegorical side, just so they can fit the belief of evolution in their somewhere. If this was just the spiritual side then why do we exactly die? If the wages of sin are death, what being sinned first to bring death? A molecular life form who had according to evolution no brain, no eyes, no capable working senses no knowledge of anything?

Ok. Home again. Part 2

Death, sin and evolution

You are clearly aware that there is more than one way to interpret the scripture on this point. But it is incorrect to say the only reason some people say that the death referred to in Genesis 2-3 is spiritual is "to fit evolution in somewhere". In fact, I have often seen the same point being made by strict literalists when asked to explain why Adam lived another 130 years when God had told him he would die "in the day" he ate from the Tree of Knowledge. Gen. 2:17 Typically the response is that Adam did die the very day he ate from the tree: he died that day, spiritually. And because he died spiritually that day, he eventually died physically as well.

So there is precedent for holding that the important death was spiritual death, not physical death and that precedent is not forced by evolution.

Another factor is that only humans are capable of sin, so all that Paul has to say in Romans about Adam bringing death into the world through sin has application only to human death--whether physical or spiritual. This is indicated by Paul's words, "so death spread to all, because all have sinned". Since the death that spreads to all spreads because all sin, the "all" here cannot include plants and animals since they do not sin. Adam's sin cannot be what brought death to non-human organisms, for his sin has only brought death to those who also sinned.

Some people are horrified at the idea of any death at all in the Garden of Eden. Here, I think the important question is this: does scripture present the Garden as a place on earth and Adam and Eve as human beings in all respects like us, except that before eating the forbidden fruit they were innocent of any sin? IOW is the Garden intended to be an image of what all the earth would be today if our first parents never sinned? It seems to me this is the case. For example, when God creates humanity in Genesis 1, he gives them the same command as to the other creatures: "Be fruitful and multiply". So they were intended to have children. He also tells Adam "you may freely eat of any tree in the garden" --with the exception of the Tree of Knowledge. So God provided food for them, presumably because they would need food. And earlier in Genesis 1, it is also said that the plants were to be food for the animals. In short, Eden was a functioning earthly ecology.

But it doesn't take very much thinking to realize that if this is an earthly ecology, then it had to include physical death. It would seem that even humans, insofar as they are animals, were not created exempt from physical death, but could be made exempt from death by eating from the Tree of Life. Otherwise, why is the Tree of Life needed in the garden? Genesis 3:22 doesn't seem to make any sense unless immortality was a gift of the Tree of Life rather than something inherent in human life. (This is why the Tree of Life is seen symbolically as Christ.) In THIS world, even when it is a very good world untainted by sin, life and death are inseparable.

So far, I have spoken only in terms of the teaching of scripture. But there is one other reason to hold that plant and animal death must have existed before there was sin. And that is the simple inescapable fact that we have the remains of species that flourished and became extinct hundreds of millions of years before there were any humans at all. One does not even need to focus on dinosaurs. There were trilobites, eurypterids ammonites, anomalocarus, hallucigenia, dickinsonia, acanthastega, dimetrion, pakicetus, and thousands upon thousands of other forms of life that once inhabited earth and disappeared long before any human even existed and sin could have any foothold here. [I may have misspelled some of those names--working from memory here.]


So that death existed on earth before humans existed is an unavoidable fact. Just like the unavoidable fact that earth orbits the sun as one planet in one solar system, rather than being the centre of the universe with everything in heaven rotating around earth. Just as our 16th century ancestors found they had to change their understanding of scripture to reconcile it with the facts of cosmology, we need to adopt an understanding of scripture that is consistent with that fact that non-human death has always been an aspect of creation.

Furthermore, we need to separate this issue from evolution. The first Christians who came to the realization that plant and animal death is not connected to Adam's sin didn't even have evolution in mind at all. They were responding to the geologists' discoveries of ancient fossils even before Darwin was born. This is where old-earth creationism comes from. So one can accept non-human death before sin and still reject evolution. This is what great anatomists of the 19th century like Cuvier and Agassiz did. This is what great anti-evolutionist theologians of the 19th century like Charles Hodge did.

Now I still think there are strong grounds for accepting evolution as well, but the argument that it demands natural death prior to human existence and human sin is not an obstacle. That is a fact which must be accepted on other grounds anyway. And there is no real scriptural barrier to accepting natural death before sin for non-human life.

Just because there are similarities in bone structure and in the DNA of certain animals does not mean it is the cause of evolution from any kind of ancestor. I mean what about the REAL transitional fossils not just the computerized or drawings of transitional fossils on Wikipedia.

The real transitional fossils, of course, are housed in museums and universities where they can be studied by paleontologists. And many are so fragile and precious that they are seldom made available to the general public. That is why casts are made. Drawings are made on the basis of close anatomical analysis of the fossils, and for most people, they are more informative than the fossils themselves anyway.

I mentioned two pioneers of the study of anatomy above. Neither of them were favorably inclined to evolution. This is something that skeptics should be aware of. The science of fossil anatomy--of working out from bone structure what the musculature and organ systems and overall shape of an organism was---was developed largely by scientists who were Christians and not evolutionists. It was a creationist anatomist (Cuvier) not an evolutionist who boasted that he could reconstruct an entire animal from a single tooth.

So don't put down reconstructions. They have a valuable role in science well beyond providing an image for public consumption.


It is also well to remember that by "transitional" scientists don't mean "direct ancestor". It is largely an anatomical term meaning that the fossil exhibits a mix of characters that crosses the boundaries of two taxons. So we have fossils that show characteristics of both terrestrial vertebrates and whales, of both bears and dogs, of both fish and amphibians, and so forth. And as Mallon can tell you, paleontologists who specialize in vertebrate fossils can engage in very heated discussions over whether to call a particular fossil a mammal-like reptile or a reptile-like mammal.

I am sure this hasn't dealt with all your questions, but we can continue discussion at your convenience.

 

[Mallon]

And as Mallon can tell you, paleontologists who specialize in vertebrate fossils can engage in very heated discussions over whether to call a particular fossil a mammal-like reptile or a reptile-like mammal.

These days, we just call them basal synapsids.

EXCELLENT post, by the way.

 

[WingsOfEagles07]

Okay we can restart the post over again because I know the reason my posts are not making sense. lol. As you all have probably observed, I have knowledge of that to atheistic evolutionists not theistic evolutionists. lol. Because the things I have mentioned have no worth to them since we both believe in the same GOD, that is probably the reason. Do you all agree? That is what I am thinking. But I will post some things towards theistic evolutionists though I do not know much about theistic evolutionists. Im sorry about that.

 

[Mallon]

Because the things I have mentioned have no worth to them since we both believe in the same GOD, that is probably the reason. Do you all agree?

Yep!
It sounds like you are mistaking evolution for atheism, but the two are not the same thing. Evolution is compatible with Christianity. Atheism, obviously, is not.

 

[WingsOfEagles07]

Yep!
It sounds like you are mistaking evolution for atheism, but the two are not the same thing. Evolution is compatible with Christianity. Atheism, obviously, is not.

I think I was trying to show the invalidity of evolution from the atheism perspective lol. But this is a totally new perspective I will have to study. But as of right now I have one question to ask before I go to church.

How come GOD would cause death of organisms for billions of years just to create the human body, but when he comes back create a body that is incorruptible in the blink of an eye?

 

[Melethiel]

Why did God create humanity in the first place, knowing that they would sin? Why did God decide the best way to redeem humanity was to become a human and die?

Why does God do anything?

 

[gluadys]

I think I was trying to show the invalidity of evolution from the atheism perspective lol. But this is a totally new perspective I will have to study. But as of right now I have one question to ask before I go to church.

How come GOD would cause death of organisms for billions of years just to create the human body, but when he comes back create a body that is incorruptible in the blink of an eye?

He isn't creating a body. He is changing an existing mortal body into an immortal body. After all, if he were creating new bodies, there would be no point in resurrection. Jesus's resurrection body was not a different body than the one laid in the tomb. Neither will ours be.

 

[Mallon]

How come GOD would cause death of organisms for billions of years just to create the human body, but when he comes back create a body that is incorruptible in the blink of an eye?

I agree with gluadys' reply to this question, but, like Melethiel, would also add that when it comes to God's schedule, there are just some things we cannot account for. Why did God wait so long before sending a saviour to atone for our sins? And why has Jesus not returned yet to end human suffering? I don't think the kinds of questions you're asking are you unique to evolutionary creationism.

 

[Papias]

Wings, there are plenty of books on theistic evolution too. One is:
Amazon.com: Coming to Peace With Science: Bridging the Worlds Between Faith and Biology (9780830827428): Darrel R. Falk, Francis Collins: Books

For more, look at some of the other suggestions at the bottom of that page, or do your own searches on Amazon. A Christian faith that is in accordance with the real world is a much stronger faith, one that won't crumble when shown what the evidence really is.

Papias

 

[crawfish]

I know that there are a lot of christians in the world who believe in Evolution (Theistic Evolutionists). You have probably studied this, but evolution causes death before man but man brought death into the world how can both exist at the same time? Most people will say well, this is the spiritual side, or allegorical side, just so they can fit the belief of evolution in their somewhere. If this was just the spiritual side then why do we exactly die? If the wages of sin are death, what being sinned first to bring death?

I brought up some issues with the "no death before the fall" view here http://www.christianforums.com/t7437557/. I do not think it is a valid or biblical viewpoint. Feel free to comment in that thread if you wish. The only comments that I received from YEC proponents were from those who didn't accept the "no death" viewpoint. I would have liked to hear the points discussed by someone who does.

 

[WingsOfEagles07]

I am sorry for such a delay. I have had to run at a track meet and track practice with lots of homework then one day this forum would not connect with my computer and I was like ??? But anyway, sorry.

I am sorry, but even though you all may rely on some of the teachings of Biologos in which I know of through AiG. I know of evolution but not really through a theistic evolutionist way. You understand? I know how to defend the Bible from evolution through an Atheistic worldview. Like, I can refute evolution through the way of an atheist but through the eyes of a theistic evolutionist since we believe in the same GOD. You see what I mean, but to me, I take Genesis as it really is, just as in the book of Pslams near the end chapters David talks about how "God spoke" and it happened. It is not a matter of how long it took. Most people fight of how we came into existence by looking at evidence but if you think about it we all have the same evidence the same world with the same fossils it is just a matter of the correct interpretation. Just because a creation scientist says that evolution is true or there is evidence for it does not make it any more true than a biblical creationist like me saying that something else is evidence for creation. Yes, you can say that my interpretation is not true according the presuppositions you all may have but I can say the same thing to you. Whenever I read the Bible, I read it as GOD said it and it happened just because it shows he magnificent power of the Almighty GOD. Because to me GOD using the theory of evolution made by man or thought of by man to explain the reason of how life came about over the course of millions of years does not show his mighty power to me. To some people that power of GOD may be shown but I guarantee that more people would say that through the words of GOD and it happening shows the amazing power of GOD. I love GOD and I know some of you guys also do, but I say lets stop arguing of who is correct about the origins of the universe and of life and lets go out into the world and save souls. I once talked to an atheist and I asked him questions that I think I may have already told you guys and he said ill brb and never came back because he could not answer me logically according to his worldview. One person I believe so, got saved by the teaching of the word of GOD literally by Creation and showing his ultimate power through the very words of CHRIST and not by the work of billions of years because GOD wanted to experiment with us. This is in no way my argument against evolution of theistic evolutionists I am showing you guys why I believe more in a literal Creation instead of evolution. You guys are not going to change my mind even if your knowledge of theistic evolution can out surpass the knowledge GOD has blessed me with to teach to the world and help reach souls to CHRIST! AMEN! PRAISE GOD!