Do you agree or disagree with this statement?

[HitchSlap]

How do you know it never happened?

We've known this for almost 200 years.
The question is, why don't you know this?

 

[Hoghead1]

How do you know it never happened?

In the 19th century, scientists thought they could find evidence of a global Flood. In the course of their researches, the hard evidence that turned up supported evolution, not a global Flood. Also, Scripture is ambiguous here. Maybe it is talking about a global flood, maybe about a huge local one.

 

[Cearbhall]

We've known this for almost 200 years.

Cultures that don't have a flood myth have known it for all of history.

Maybe it is talking about a global flood, maybe about a huge local one.

Which, it's important to note, would essentially have been global to them.

 

[amariselle]

Could you explain further? I'm not seeing how that logically follows. It seems to me that you think you're supposed to believe in Creationism. When I was Christian, I just understood that ancient authors wouldn't have been able to comprehend evolution. Anachronistic knowledge didn't seem to be part of the divinely-inspired deal. The vocabulary for it didn't even exist in their languages.

I believe in creation, because I believe in God and I have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. I'm sure that language for such things can often be inadequate, but as I believe the Bible is the divinely inspired word of God, I believe I can put my faith in it.

 

[Hoghead1]

Actually evolution is taught everywhere. I can't even watch a nature program without hearing about how our ancestors climbed out of the "primordial sludge" 2 billion years ago. (Or some such claim) And this is also true of nature museums and zoos.

Of course. That's what happened. However, it was not as direct of a process as you describe it. Our ancestors did not suddenly climb out of the sludge. Also, if you seem to have trouble with us coming from a very humble origin, what about the Bible? It says God created Adam out of mud or dust. Isn't that kind of a humble origin also? I sure think so. Actually, there is a kind of parallel here between the Bible and evolution, as the Bible can be interpreted to mean God created us out of star stuff.

 

[Cearbhall]

I believe in creation, because I believe in God and I have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.

You keep speaking philosophically. None of this is incompatible with the scientific theory that we are discussing.

I'm sure that language for such things can often be inadequate, but as I believe the Bible is the divinely inspired word of God, I believe I can put my faith in it.

Sure, I have no problem with that, but why do you feel you are obligated to put your faith in a particular interpretation? Why do you have faith that these ancient peoples meant to communicate literal history? There's no evidence that this was their intention. I don't see why it would be immoral to draw a conclusion that matches reality.

 

[amariselle]

Do you believe that's the same time that humans were created?

I understand that there are different interpretations of the Biblical creation account. Some hold to an absolutely literal interpretation, and some believe it is more figurative, (maybe not a literal 6 days of creation for instance). I have come to the conviction that I don't know for sure. But what I do know is that God did create this earth and everything in it.

Because we generally operate from the standpoint of "There was not a global natural disaster that created a population bottleneck of less than 20 humans" until we actually have a reason to think it happened...

Fair enough.

 

[amariselle]

Of course. That's what happened. However, it was not as direct of a process as you describe it. Our ancestors did not suddenly climb out of the sludge. Also, if you seem to have trouble with us coming from a very humble origin, what about the Bible? It says God created Adam out of mud or dust. Isn't that kind of a humble origin also? I sure think so. Actually, there is a kind of parallel here between the Bible and evolution, as the Bible can be interpreted to mean God created us out of star stuff.

Oh, I don't have a problem with humble origins at all, but I do believe we were created in God's image.

 

[Cearbhall]

Actually evolution is taught everywhere. I can't even watch a nature program without hearing about how our ancestors climbed out of the "primordial sludge" 2 billion years ago. (Or some such claim) And this is also true of nature museums and zoos.

Good. They're supposed to be educational. I want to know that my tax dollars are going to good use.

 

[amariselle]

You keep speaking philosophically. None of this is incompatible with the scientific theory that we are discussing.

Sure, I have no problem with that, but why do you feel you are obligated to put your faith in a particular interpretation? Why do you have faith that these ancient peoples meant to communicate literal history? There's no evidence that this was their intention. I don't see why it would be immoral to draw a conclusion that matches reality.

Actually, I do believe that God created life with the possibility of evolution, just not the kind of evolution that claims we are not created in His image.

 

[amariselle]

You said earlier that you did hold with evolution, however.

Not the kind of evolution that removes God from the picture.

 

[KWCrazy]

Although, in pretty much every conversation I've had with Atheists on this topic, they use this view of evolution to claim that since we descended from "a common ancestor" we "know" there is no Creator.

It's easy for Christians to believe in evolution. All they have to do is to reject 45% of the Scriptures and assume that Jesus was lying though His teeth when He spoke of Noah and compared the Scriptures to the Word of God. All good Christians know that the Bible is really just a book of mythology. All good Christians know that God was capable only of accidentally setting things in motion and that the creation took billions of years. They know that the whole bit about a six day creation was made up by bronze age goat herders and has nothing to do with reality.

The one thing I don't understand is this. If Darwinists believe what Darwin taught, shouldn't Christians believe what Christ taught? But then, what do I know? I'm one of those crazy people who still believe the Bible is true.

 

[hopesprings]

All religions suffer from the Santa syndrome, which is:
If you stop reinforcing a belief then children will eventually stop believing it.

I respectfully disagree. I am a Christian and have been for most of my life, but I will attempt to argue my point from a more "neutral" place.

The existence of "things"--human beings, animals, plants, etc.--naturally gives rise to the question "Where did I/it/they come from?" Religious beliefs (and I will only speak of them since that is what the OP refers to) do provide answers to those questions if one chooses to believe them. And yes, one may argue, "How can one possibly look to God for life answers if one has never heard of Him?" The easiest (?) answer is that we are all looking for a "reason" for existing. We appear to exist in a search for "something". In that search, children (and adults) can find God (or religion) whether or not beliefs are being reinforced.

 

[Cearbhall]

Actually, I do believe that God created life with the possibility of evolution, just not the kind of evolution that claims we are not created in His image.

What kind might that be?

Not the kind of evolution that removes God from the picture.

So you're fine with theistic evolution?

 

[Hoghead1]

Actually, I do believe that God created life with the possibility of evolution, just not the kind of evolution that claims we are not created in His image.

Then, why do you have trouble with teaching people about evolution? Your whole argument is about whether or not a Creator was involved with it, not whether there is such a process taking place. Almost all the presentations I have ever heard just simply describe the process and say nothing about whether or not God is called for. That question is left open for theology and philosophy to address.

 

[Hoghead1]

Not the kind of evolution that removes God from the picture.

Well, OK, then. So why object to teaching about evolution?

 

[Cearbhall]

It's easy for Christians to believe in evolution. All they have to do is to reject 45% of the Scriptures and assume that Jesus was lying though His teeth when He spoke of Noah and compared the Scriptures to the Word of God. All good Christians know that the Bible is really just a book of mythology. All good Christians know that God was capable only of accidentally setting things in motion and that the creation took billions of years. They know that the whole bit about a six day creation was made up by bronze age goat herders and has nothing to do with reality.

Yep. This is exactly how I was raised as a Christian. I would have left a lot sooner if I'd been born into a community that expected me to believe things that contradict reality.

Except for the "lying through His teeth" part. He wasn't "lying" when he told the parables, so why would it be "lying" to tell important stories from his culture that were thought up by someone else?

 

[amariselle]

What kind might that be?

So you're fine with theistic evolution?

In some ways I suppose I am. I freely admit I do not have all the answers in this. But on a smaller scale we have seen the possibilities in genetics. (Take all the different breeds of dog we have now for instance, all of that potential was in the wolves God created.)

 

[amariselle]

Well, OK, then. So why object to teaching about evolution?

I object to the evolution that infers we have no Creator. And much of what is taught today does just that.

 

[Job8]

I agree, some people would still need something to help them cope with life. [not to mention death]

You forgot to mention the afterlife, which is even more critical. For those who know Christ personally, death is merely a transition into His presence.