Evolution and Creation - do they mix?

[shernren]

Not using this to judge anyone... But you die, and your standing in front of God for your judgement... You're still saved, but he ask's you why you held to a foolish human/worldly understanding of the world, and why didn't you believe Genesis? What would you say?? (Granted being God, he would already know, but I'm using this to try and make a point)

-Umm, because it seemed not literal???

Believe and not question, don't be deceived by the world and it's thinking.

When Genesis doesn't mention bacteria, do you "believe" it, or are you "deceived by the world" into believing they exist?
When Genesis doesn't mention phytoplankton, do you "believe" it, or are you "deceived by the world" into believing they exist?
When Genesis says that the sky is a solid firmament, do you "believe" it, or are you "deceived by the world" into believing that it is nothing more than a very thin layer of air surrounding the earth?

Why are you "questioning" and not "believing"? Why have you held to "a foolish understanding of the world"?

Why believe the science you have now over the science the enlightened Jews had?

YECs condemn themselves by their own words.

 

[Dannager]

Funny thing occured to me why browsing this thread. Someone mentioned how scientists don't believe in miracles(referring to the resurrection, healings, etc. I would say that is an incorrect statement! Believe me, if they actually think that my ancestors started out as pond scum and that my forefathers were walking "apes" then i would have to say they believe in miracles. The things they want us to believe about how we came into this world are actuallyfar harder for me to even concieve than any of the miracles found in the Bible! Need i say i belive in the God of the Bible and His perfect creation that we have ruined thru the centuries.

Common ancestry is well-evidenced.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/

Enjoy!

 

[savedbygracebre]

Common ancestory from humans to what? My ancestors were Adam and Eve. Those are my original beginning parents. The thing is is that i know with absolute TRUTH who my ancestors were. In evolution they change their ancestors all of the time on their so-called latest "find".

 

[Gwenyfur]

Let us suppose that God had told Moses all about evolution, abiogenesis, the Big Bang, general and special relativity, string theory, and a number of other things about the world.


instead of God telling Moses the state of our current science, propose that God told Moses the state of science 500 years in our future.

could we understand it?
or would we fight it as something wrongheaded and contradictory to the best science we know?

Doesn't that assume that man was stupid? A child can understand abiogenesis, the Big bang and even special relativity if it's explained...
G-d did a good job of explaining to Sarai that she would bear a child...He didn't have a problem explaining to Mary she was carrying Messiah...nor did He have trouble telling Joseph to marry her anyway...

so why is it assumed that man was too stupid to understand how G-d created the world and instead wrote an "allegorical" tale or a "fictionalized" parable?

reading too much evolutionary material maybe?

 

[Dannager]

Common ancestory from humans to what? My ancestors were Adam and Eve. Those are my original beginning parents. The thing is is that i know with absolute TRUTH who my ancestors were. In evolution they change their ancestors all of the time on their so-called latest "find".

Ancestry from an initial living organism through animals to mammals, primates and then eventually human beings. You obviously didn't bother to read the resources I linked you to, though, since they explain common ancestry in detail. Look at the links. Evolutionary theory rarely changes any accepted human ancestors. They will occasionally add in new ones to fill in previously unknown links in the chain of evolution, but on the rare occasion that a species is actually switched out it is always a change towards better accuracy. Don't try to demonize evolutionary theory by making it look like guesswork. It's nothing of the sort and to insinuate such is an outright lie.

 

[Dannager]

Doesn't that assume that man was stupid?

No, just simply unprepared for it. There's a difference between knowledge and acceptance of knowledge, as creationists regularly demonstrate.

A child can understand abiogenesis, the Big bang and even special relativity if it's explained...

Because a child places trust in those who are teaching them. Convincing an entire society is an entirely different matter. Arguments-from-a-child-can-understand are fallacies.

G-d did a good job of explaining to Sarai that she would bear a child...He didn't have a problem explaining to Mary she was carrying Messiah...nor did He have trouble telling Joseph to marry her anyway...

These are individual explanations conducted by God's servants (usually of the angelic type) to a single person. Compare this to the creation account that had to be delivered by one individual (not of divine origin) to the entire population. A scientific explanation would have been ridiculous. A well-told morality tale would have been happily accepted.

so why is it assumed that man was too stupid to understand how G-d created the world and instead wrote an "allegorical" tale or a "fictionalized" parable?

Don't try to make it look like we're calling early man stupid. We're simply saying that early man was mired in a philosophical mindset that prevented them from accepting something as modern as a scientific explanation.

reading too much evolutionary material maybe?

I don't think there's such a thing as too much accurate information.

 

[Gwenyfur]

Ancestry from an initial living organism through animals to mammals, primates and then eventually human beings. You obviously didn't bother to read the resources I linked you to, though, since they explain common ancestry in detail. Look at the links. Evolutionary theory rarely changes any accepted human ancestors. They will occasionally add in new ones to fill in previously unknown links in the chain of evolution, but on the rare occasion that a species is actually switched out it is always a change towards better accuracy. Don't try to demonize evolutionary theory by making it look like guesswork. It's nothing of the sort and to insinuate such is an outright lie.

 

[Dannager]

It's okay if you don't have anything to say. We understand.