Evolution vs. Creationism

[UniversalAxis]

Yes, If adam and Eve were the only people on earth, then to populate the earth would have required incest at some point, among their children - brothers with sisters, father with daughters, mother with sons, etc. While this is appalling to us at this time and age in history, this was the case. As for incest being a sin, yes, it is listed as such, however, the law given by God to mankind, did not exist at this point. So, at the time of occurence, the incest acts were NOT a sin. You are responsible for what has been revealed to you, is an idea set forth in the new testament. At the time that the incest among Adam, Eve, and their children occurred, it was not a sin to do so. There had been only one command up to that time, "Eat not of the fruit of the tree growing in the center of the garden". This was broken, the incest laws came later.

All that inbreeding sure does explain the state of later humanity. (tasteless joke, thank you, I'll be here all week, don't forget to tip your waitress)

 

[BurningHeart]

If it is true that it is faith in Jesus Christ which saves, which i cannot disagree with, Then why do we need the explainations of a creation myth at all?
Isn't it simply enough to read the New Testament alone and have Jesus' message?
The exercise of trying to find the origins of the universe, earth and life are strictly academic endevors.
No one can dispute that, in the Bible, Jesus and his teachings are the way to salvation. But to get defensive about Genesis being entirely correct is border-line absurdity.
Once one can realize that Genesis doesn't have to be literally correct, nor does the Big Bang, Evolution and the rest, for one to be happy, then one can live a happy life. These 'Evilutionists' and scientist and those who follow them are engaged in an academic endevour, not to be confused with a theistic endevor.
Jesus' words are strong enough to stand on their own and don't even need an Old Testament except as Jesus' back story.
That being said, it does not make sense that we are forced to disagree, just because two chapters in Genesis come in to conflict with a prevailing scientific theory.
Maybe it is just me, but that is how I see it; besides, scientists need jobs, they can't all be priests or fast food workers.

The problem with this idea is that Genesis and the OT is the very basis for EVERYTHING in the NT. If there is no creator, or act of creation, there is no existence of God before time itself. Jesus ceases to the the Pre-Existent Word of God and becomes mearly a man like the rest of us. The OT itself is cruicial to EVERYTHING found in the NT. The debate is not simply an academic one, it is at it's very CORE an Theistic debate. Evolution stopped being science long ago, it is as much a religion today as is Christianity. I know this will draw fire from Evolutionists, but it is true. Evolution requires as much faith, or more to beleive in that divine creation. But, if I can "prove" that I came only from a monkey, I'm descended from other animals, etc. then why should my actions be any different than what I find in the rest of the Animal Kingdom? Evolution is simply bad science. Again, I know I will draw fire from the opposite side for this, but it simply CANNOT be taught as fact. That said, let me qualify it by saying that neither can Creationism. Neither idea can the be taught as FACT, they can ONLY - according to scientific method - be discussed as theories. I am getting a little off subject though. You are correct in saying that at the heart of the matter, whether you will go to Heaven or Hell, or attain salvation or not, is NOT decided by what you beleive about Creation or Evolution. But, the basis of Cristianity begins in Genesis, not in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. It is not something that can be dissmissed as simply an academic endeavor.

 

[Pilgrim 33]

The Bible stands on its own; you either accept it or reject it.

Slow down, Pilgrim. If the Bible were that straight-forward and cut-and-dry,

whoever said it was? There are more secrets and truths and mysteries and discoveries in the Bible than we could ever find, not in any one lifetime but in all time. We are told not to just passively read but to study to show ourselves approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed.

why are there so many Christian denominations and sects?

why are there six billion people with six billion..uhm, opinions? Free will, free choice. A jumping whoopin and hollerin and waving and dancing around singing praise worshipping charismatic young crowd is not gonna feel comfortable in a small old country hard oak pewed ancient organ methodist church any more than them old timer Lutherans would feel comfortable with the charismatic crowd googlin and a babblin. People are different. Take that away, as humanism desires, and The Gospel and Jesus are no longer needed.

More accurately, your claim should be, "My understanding of the Bible stands on it's own. You either accept my understanding of it, or you reject it."

That's why we are to study, and not just rad it like as if it was just another cheap pulp mystery or romance novel, although, there are far too many versions out nowadays that are, sadly, written that way. It's part of that fast food, i want it now, and like tv i don't want to have to think much less pray culture that society is gradually forcing on us.

 

[Pilgrim 33]

At least I presume he was, because the Bible introduces the Nephilim in Genesis 6:4. Then comes the flood, survived by Noah and his family. After that, a spotting of the Nephilim is reported in Numbers 13:33.
.

The reason Noah, his three sons, and their familes were saved is because they were the only humans that were not polluted (and maybe deluded) by the Nephilim.

 

[BurningHeart]

All that inbreeding sure does explain the state of later humanity. (tasteless joke, thank you, I'll be here all week, don't forget to tip your waitress)

AMEN to that. Tasteless joke maybe, but with a measure of truth

 

[Mistermystery]

and the universe went *slap to the forehead*

 

[Pilgrim 33]

But to get defensive about Genesis being entirely correct is border-line absurdity.

Just as absurd as saying the same about any other part of the Bible.

Once one can realize that Genesis doesn't have to be literally correct,

Oh, but it does, and it is, always; just as mankind doesn't have to be correct, and usually isn't. the difference is that man has to admit it is not the Bible that is wrong but rather that it is he that is wrong, and that his submission to and understanding of God's Word and will is incomplete and flawed.

nor does the Big Bang, Evolution and the rest, for one to be happy, then one can live a happy life. These 'Evilutionists' and scientist and those who follow them are engaged in an academic endevour, not to be confused with a theistic endevor.

Where their heart is there is their god. when their academic endeavor has befcome number one in their life it has become their god. and when people say 'look out for number one" it's easy enough to see who their god is.

it does not make sense that we are forced to disagree, just because two chapters in Genesis come in to conflict with a prevailing scientific theory.

It's the other way around, man has come into conflict with God.

Maybe it is just me, but that is how I see it; besides, scientists need jobs, they can't all be priests or fast food workers.

yeah, well, maybe one day you can give up that burger flipper for an eternity of floating around heaven all day playing a harp. Me, i plan on playing Q for a few millennia haunting janeway and piquard and terrorizing species 8472 and the Borg.

 

[Natalie4937]

One of the answers should be, "Who Knows?" or "Neither are right"

It's not like anyone can be 100% sure. (No offense to those of you who think you are). They are both just theories.

 

[UniversalAxis]

Once one can realize that Genesis doesn't have to be literally correct,

Oh, but it does, and it is, always; just as mankind doesn't have to be correct, and usually isn't. the difference is that man has to admit it is not the Bible that is wrong but rather that it is he that is wrong, and that his submission to and understanding of God's Word and will is incomplete and flawed.

If the descriptions of the events in Genesis are not wrong, then please answer the following questions:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Bible says that the whole world was flooded, and that everything died but Noah and his family and the stuff on the Ark, right?
So, then, did he take the time to drop off Buffalo in North America before he sailed over to Australia and dropped off the Kangaroo and Kowala?
Also, did Noah pick up Aborigines and Chinese and Indian People too, and keep them on his ark? What about Native Americans? Did he drop them all off on his way back to wherever he lived?

 

[UniversalAxis]

Hasn't it been said that for God to leave evidence of his existence behind then that precludes the Faith requirement for salvation. Therefore, if the Bible can be proven 100% accurate, then God must have existed. Therefore God cannot exist if the Bible proves that he exists. I believe he exists, therefore, the Bible cannot be 100% accurate.

Ride that logic train if ye dare!!

 

[Pilgrim 33]

Evolution stopped being science long ago, it is as much a religion today as is Christianity. I know this will draw fire from Evolutionists, but it is true. Evolution requires as much faith,

evolutionists seeks to prove by the archeological and scientific evidences what they believe. This is belief not faith. Trust in Jesus, sight unseen for one's lifetime looking forward to that day of hope is faith. it's not trying to prove He is, as evolution attempts to prove their god of dry bones.

Neither idea can the be taught as FACT, they can ONLY - according to scientific method - be discussed as theories.

One is an assumed physical religious belief, the other a faith confirmed spiritual fact.

 

[Pilgrim 33]

Hasn't it been said that for God to leave evidence of his existence behind

He did. It's called creation. And, still, people don't believe.

Ride that logic train if ye dare!!

them folk 're on shakey rails.

 

[UniversalAxis]

Quote: Originally Posted by: UniversalAxis

Hasn't it been said that for God to leave evidence of his existence behind

He did. It's called creation. And, still, people don't believe.

Ride that logic train if ye dare!!

them folk 're on shakey rails.

They must be shakey rails indeed... You derailed mid sentence!

 

[Pilgrim 33]

They must be shakey rails indeed... You derailed mid sentence!

railroaded thru life

 

[UniversalAxis]

So, Pilgrim33, does that mean that faith is not necessary since there is so much evidence?

 

[Pilgrim 33]

So, Pilgrim33, does that mean that faith is not necessary since there is so much evidence?

for most it's a moot point since they don't believe their own eyes.

the rest just accept it cause God said it was so.

 

[UniversalAxis]

for most it's a moot point since they don't believe their own eyes.

the rest just accept it cause God said it was so.

So, then what about you? The above quote only tells me about everyone else.

 

[Pilgrim 33]

So, then what about you? The above quote only tells me about everyone else.

which are you one of? the most or the rest?


a stranger in a strange land, a pilgrim, like mr natural, just passin' thru, oh, Lawdie, don' it make ya wanna go Home!

izzata most 'r a rest?

 

[UniversalAxis]

Quid pro quo?
I would say that the existence of the universe is fair proof of God. But as I have stated, I am also not one to believe that the bible should be taken literally. Epecially the book of Genesis. But that does no mean that the universe is absolute proof of God. The only way for there to be irrefuable proof of God is to witness a physical form of God that cannot be anything else. I.E. God in His true form could not have killed on the cross, only in his lesser form as the Son could this have happened, even if Jesus was later resurrected. I think that the stories of 6-day-creation and resting, the flood, and Adam and Eve are allegorical and meant to convey something deeper than their literal and superficial meaning.
The 6 day creation and resting was meant to explain existence and the Earth as it has been observed.
Adam and Eve, because humanity had no other reason to exist except by God's direct creation.
The Flood was meant to say that the Pious and Devout will be saved by the hand of God though the wicked and unbelievers shall be punished by His righteous hand.

The message is clear to me, though they need not be literally nor historically true. To divde all believers into two categories is to oversimplify the issue too much. One of the Religions professors I was had in College said of Interpretation:
"There are as many interpretations of religion as there are people in the world."
That made sense to me.
So, then, what about you, pilgrim?

 

[Pilgrim 33]

Quid pro quo?
I would say that the existence of the universe is fair proof of God. But as I have stated, I am also not one to believe that the bible should be taken literally. Epecially the book of Genesis. But that does no mean that the universe is absolute proof of God. The only way for there to be irrefuable proof of God is to witness a physical form of God that cannot be anything else. I.E. God in His true form could not have killed on the cross, only in his lesser form as the Son

There is no lesser to it. Jesus was/is God come in the flesh. Before creation ALL power has been given unto The Son. It is that power that emanated ("and God said") from God that brought everything into existence. It is that same power that literally holds the universe togther. When He leaves it's all gonna fall apart and all hell's gonna brak lose. And i'm going with Him!

could this have happened, even if Jesus was later resurrected. I think that the stories of 6-day-creation and resting, the flood, and Adam and Eve are allegorical

This cannot be stated as fact or viable opinion without first presenting the grammatical proofs of allegory within the text. There are a few very excellent and exhaustive works on the subject.

and meant to convey something deeper than their literal and superficial meaning.
The 6 day creation and resting was meant to explain existence and the Earth as it has been observed.
Adam and Eve, because humanity had no other reason to exist except by God's direct creation.
The Flood was meant to say that the Pious and Devout will be saved by the hand of God though the wicked and unbelievers shall be punished by His righteous hand.

The message is clear to me, though they need not be literally nor historically true. To divde all believers into two categories is to oversimplify the issue too much.

yeah, i know you said believers...

believers/unbelievers is two categories

martyed believers at the first resurrection &
the rest of the sleeping and living at the second resurrection
is another two class category

the judgment of nations is two more classes

there are the just and unjust servants, two more classes of saved believers, who will be judged (recompensed) for their work in The Lord.

there are the unsaved dead, gone, forgotten, and not to be resurrected and to be judged in abstentia when "all things shall be made known" and those alive on the earth at judgment are two more classes.

There are those that will be where The Father and The Lord is The Temple in the New Jeruslalem, and those who are not, there's two more classes.

Then there's the saved and unsaved Jews, two more classes.

Still on the Jews, some inside NJ, some outside is two more classes.

Finally, we divide the unsaved into two classes; those that have God's mercy and compassion and those that don't

One of the Religions professors I was had in College said of Interpretation:
"There are as many interpretations of religion as there are people in the world."

yeah, and they all have their own roll of tp, :o but the scientific world would delude you into believing the lie that they are really opinions.

That made sense to me.
So, then, what about you?

yup.

Exodus 33:19, "And he said, I will make all my goodness pass before thee, and I will proclaim the name of the LORD before thee; and will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will shew mercy on whom I will shew mercy."

Romans 9:15, "For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion."