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.
Numerous studies have show, the majority of Christians accept evolution.
No, acceptance of evolution starts with reviewing known facts, and arriving at conclusions based upon those facts.In fact evolution starts with a humongous faith in something that is totally ridiculous that supersedes any that a christian might have.
Well, for some there is a real reason and that is to protect a fundamentalist faith belief.
Protecting the belief, takes priority over accepting mountains of evidence.
I'm still learning about what fundamentalism even is & how it differs from being an evangelical Christian. I thought we were all evangelical Christians tho. There's all these different faith groups, fundamentalism, moderate, liberal and then all the denominations & stuff. I don't know who believes what. I just have never heard of anybody not believing in evolution b4. I didn't know it was something you could believe in tbh. Cause really it's about facts not belief.
1. There always exists the question, "Why is there something rather than nothing." The whole point of the beginning of Genesis is that God created. Evolution does not explain how what is came into being, nor doesWhile I agree there are many ways to believe in [a] God and believe in evolution, one cannot consistently believe in evolution and believe in the God of the Bible. That is because evolution claims life and the whole universe came about through purely natural causes, while the Bible says God specifically and intentionally created. The two claims are mutually exclusive: only one can be true.
Likewise one cannot believe in long ages (which evolution requires) and believe in the Bible. Long ages puts death before sin, and that contradicts the first part of the central message of the whole OT, that death is a result of Adam's sin. The second part of the central message of the whole OT is that man cannot be reconciled to God through his own efforts; and the central message of the whole NT is an answer to the dilemma of the OT, namely that Jesus died for our sins so we can be reconciled to God. If God created some great length of time in the past, and man is only a recent addition to God's creation, then that means death was here from the beginning, not a result of man's sin. If death is not a result of sin, then death is normal, in fact, by evolution's position, required, then Jesus saving us from death is not required - it is not even welcome.
I disagree. YEC start with a conclusion and then try to force the evidence to fit (inductive reasoning). Evolutionists didn't start with a conclusion, but followed the evidence to its conclusion (deductive reasoning).It's not a matter of ignoring evidence, it's a matter of how the evidence is interpreted, and the difference in interpretation comes from different starting perspectives. YECs and others start with the same "mountains of evidence" so it's not that one side has 'mountains' and the other doesn't. As I said in my previous post, I believe Jesus died for my sins, to save me from death (the consequences of my sins). Thus I believe that Jesus saved me from the death that we see in the geologic record.
Narrow is the Way. No I think it breaks the logical rules of interpretation found in Scripture. We cannot just allegorize something like this because today it doesn't fit with our understanding of reality.
I highly doubt when this was written that anyone would have read it like that. A simplistic summarized evolution account could easily have been given by God that would have satisfied the "simple minds" of primitive man. Much like how the pagans had their primitive views of evolution. I take an allegorical approach as misleading unrighteous deception on God's part. There is nothing obvious about an allegory in the text. It is only inferred by modern scientific views that conflict with the literal reading and necessitate it to reconcile faith with supposed reality.
True, but one could be an atheist and simply believe that life always existed in its present state, for example. Atheists accept evolution not because it's the only atheist position, but because it's the only position supported by the facts.I also want to comment on the title of this thread. I agree evolution is not atheistic, but I believe that evolution in some form is an inevitable conclusion of atheistic beliefs. If one does not believe a creator God exists then one cannot logically believe that such a being created anything. Thus one must conclude life and the whole universe came about through natural causes. Notice this conclusion is based in logic, not evidence, and begins with a belief (or in this case, lack of belief) contrary to the claim in the OP.
My point was that supposedly all the dinosaurs died as a result of the Chixculub impact. If it killed the largest animals it seems odd the smaller ones survived.
It isn't mentioned in the Bible what Noah had for breakfast either, so by that argument we must conclude Noah never had breakfast or he didn't exist or something.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_impact_craters_on_EarthThat's a lovely graphic. Do you have a larger version I can actually study, or perhaps a link to details on all those impacts, and what layers they are in?
Dear Open Heart,Let's not idolize pagans. The Greek philosophers had all sorts of bizarre notions of how life began, none of which were based on scientific thinking.
The Pontifical Biblical Commission
Take for example what would seem to be one of Chaberek’s strongest anti-evolution sources: a series of responsa, or replies, made regarding questions of scriptural interpretation by the Pontifical Biblical Commission between 1905 and 1909. Some of the responsa dealt with issues of historical and textual criticism more generally, and one dealt specifically with the first three chapters of Genesis.
The responsum on Genesis stated that it was not admissible to claim that these chapters are not historical narratives, but less literal forms such as:
allegories and symbols, lacking a foundation in objective reality, given under the appearance of history in order to inculcate proposed religious and philosophical truths; or…legends, partly historical and partly fictitious, freely composed for the instruction and edification of souls.
It further listed specific things the “literal, historical sense” of which cannot be called into question. These included “the special creation of man” (meaning man was created by God directly and not by secondary causes) and “the formation of the first woman out of the first man.”
…
At any rate, the question is not whether the responsa can be interpreted to admit of theistic evolution—I believe Chaberek is right that they cannot—but what sort of authority the PBC’s decrees carry.
It would really take an ecumenical council. Even an infallible statement by the Pope has to be based upon current teaching by the Church, of which there is no absolute teaching as of right now.While some in the church believe Genesis 1-3 to be of a historical nature, others regard these chapters as allegorical.
THE QUESTION IS: Who in the church has the authority to decide.
So, Jesus dying for our sins is allegorical? I'll go with the clear intent of the Bible as it's written as far as what is intended to be read as literal history and what is not.
No, acceptance of evolution starts with reviewing known facts, and arriving at conclusions based upon those facts.
I'm surprised by your answer. For me to fully understand it, does that mean that the church does not read Genesis 1-3 as historical narrative, neither does it read these same chapters allegorical or whatever?It would really take an ecumenical council. Even an infallible statement by the Pope has to be based upon current teaching by the Church, of which there is no absolute teaching as of right now.
Many other Christians, like you do, conclude that Genesis has two contradictory accounts of creation.I have given the matter much study, especially the textual evidence, and have concluded it is two contradictory accounts of creation, written a different times.
It will produce thorns and thistles for you,
and you will eat the plants of the field. Genesis 3:18
'No one to work the ground' 2:5 is parallel to 3:19 'By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food.'Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth and no plant had yet sprung up, and there was no one to work the ground. Genesis 2:5
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?