Evolution Vs Creationism

[Celtic D]

Many scientists are Christians

 

[CryptoLutheran]

Well that depends if you believe in the Word of God and work from there, or you believe in the word of godless men and work from there.

False dichotomy. The issue is hermeneutics and biblical interpretation. Presenting this false dichotomy is simply a way to demonize the opposition.

As evolutionists are so filled with scientific fact you will no doubt be able to answer the following:

- how did the first creature which spontaneuosly defied the laws of probability, and burst forth into live, how did that creature reproduce? or did it magically have that miraculous capacity hidden somewhere waiting for life to burst forth.

You're talking about origins? Is that what you're asking, how life originally formed on earth?

First of all, questions about the origins of life while related to evolution are not technically evolution itself. In fact regardless of how life first originated, the mechanics of evolution remain the same.

- How do you explain many of the earths chronometers many of which scientifically preclude any possibility of the earth being millions never mind billions of years old

I'll be honest, I googled "earth's chronometers" and the only result I got was another post from you. Link.

- what caused the big bang, seeing as every reaction must be caused by a preceding action. And where did all the atoms come from.

Again, not evolution. Now you're talking about cosmological origins.

- How does a creature evolve a sense?

By adaptation influenced primarily by environmental stresses. A cluster of light sensitive cells --> eyes.

- Why did man evolve a perception of a God, or wanting to have a relationship with a God. Why did man evolve feelings and emotions?

That's likely a very complex question, as a Christian who believes God's providence over creation, I believe evolution was guided by God and the evolution of modern man and human cognizance, sapience and spirituality are all part of God's divine providence--whatever natural causes played a part are also God's work.

- Why did the Coelecanth fish, which supposedly lived millions of years ago not evolve...? (they still exist today)

Again, environmental stresses. Coelecanths have remained virtually the same for a very long time because for whatever reason there wasn't a reason to change much. Crocodiles have also changed very little since the Mesozoic.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[MattRose]

There are enough physics, chemistry and biology student out there already, puffed up with knowledge, thinking they know it all, but in fact knowing nothing. When the blindness creeps in and steals even their basic logic, they do not perceive it....

You make it quite obvious that you have an aversion to people who take the time and effort to learn. Learning is not evil!! Interestingly, you don't appear too happy so it follows that ignorance is not bliss.

 

[SAMMISPARROW]

E = Mcsquare

 

[berachah]

False dichotomy. The issue is hermeneutics and biblical interpretation. Presenting this false dichotomy is simply a way to demonize the opposition.

"In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth"....please read the rest. Emphasis on read and not interpret. 1st day, 2nd day, "and God created great whales, and every living thing that moveth"..etc. What part of that is difficult? It seems there is a need for Bible interpretation whenever it doesn't match a doctrine.

You're talking about origins? Is that what you're asking, how life originally formed on earth?
First of all, questions about the origins of life while related to evolution are not technically evolution itself. In fact regardless of how life first originated, the mechanics of evolution remain the same.

Well you may convince yourself of this, but they are very much intertwined with one another. Without an explanation of the beginning, the theory of evolution becomes a very bad theory. Perhaps this is why people can live with the theory of evolution; they simple do not explore the questions the doctrine raises - they simple portion it off and say it is technically not relative!!

I'll be honest, I googled "earth's chronometers" and the only result I got was another post from you. Link.

geo (meaning earth) chronometers
read this link for starters ....
Creation Worldview Ministries: Is the earth 4,600,000,000 years old? Or, is the earth only 2,191,000 days (6,000 years) old?

By adaptation influenced primarily by environmental stresses. A cluster of light sensitive cells --> eyes.

Good and well, but how do human cells evolve into an organ. Something that is separate from the rest of the body, but fully integrated. Did the eye separate itself and bone grew around to protect, did tearducts, eye lids and lashes come first to prevent it drying out. Did tears come later and why do tears come with sorrow......and how did the eye cells communicate recognizable information through totally different cells types (nerves) to a totally different organ (the brain) that has no perception of light sensitivity? Unrelated you may say...but questions anyone should ask if they are seeking the truth..

Coelecanths have remained virtually the same for a very long time because for whatever reason there wasn't a reason to change much. Crocodiles have also changed very little since the Mesozoic.

And I guess monkey did have to evolve....

When one actually does some research on how long ago dinosaurs actually roamed the earth it is very interesting. Besides the reference in the Bible, most notably Job, which evolutionists will not doubt dismiss or relate to some other inappropriate animal, note the following:

- the chinese calendar consists of animals, all recognizable except the dragon. Marco Polo described the emperor of china being drawn along in his carriage by fire breathing reptiles...

- ancient folk stories are filled with the prince killing the dragon type tales

- the Welsh flag has a dragon

- ancient Indian palaces have carvings of all sorts of animals in the stone work including stegosauruses

- in the 1950's over 20 000 carved artifacts were discovered in Mexico from a tribe estimated to have lived in the area about 2000 years ago. Much of the pottery had detailed images of people fighting dinosaurs...many of the figurines had far more dinosaur detail than that known to the western world at the time

- Large Pterodactyles were sighted and pictures drawn by people in the late 1800's in the west of the USA and others found in underground caves in France

- human footprints fossilized into sediment were found crossing over dinosaur footprints....

There is lots more but because dinosaurs became extinct millions of years ago, this cannot possible be true.......

 

[berachah]

You make it quite obvious that you have an aversion to people who take the time and effort to learn. Learning is not evil!! Interestingly, you don't appear too happy so it follows that ignorance is not bliss.

Not at all. Read all you like.....but dont believe everything, especially when it is contrary to the Bible, and more so when it is a bad theory.

I am more than happy. I am filled with the joy of the Lord...When I see creation I rejoice and say "how can people believe in the lie of evolution...."

 

[MattRose]

Not at all. Read all you like.....but dont believe everything, especially when it is contrary to the Bible, and more so when it is a bad theory.

I am more than happy. I am filled with the joy of the Lord...When I see creation I rejoice and say "how can people believe in the lie of evolution...."

I will vouch for you being blissful.

Well you may convince yourself of this, but they are very much intertwined with one another. Without an explanation of the beginning, the theory of evolution becomes a very bad theory. Perhaps this is why people can live with the theory of evolution; they simple do not explore the questions the doctrine raises - they simple portion it off and say it is technically not relative!!

You're not being accurate when you say that if evolution can't explain the beginning of life it's a very bad theory.

Evolution (also known as biological or organic evolution) is the change over time in the proportion of individual organisms differing in one or more inheritedtraits. The origin of life is a necessary precursor for biological evolution, but understanding that evolution occurred once organisms appeared and investigating how this happens does not depend on understanding exactly how life began.

I cut and pasted that straight out of Wikipedia. Not that I'm asserting that makes it correct, but it means that a concensus of people who study evolution (biologists) agree with the statement. I'm not going to debate if "majority rules" opinions are always correct... they're not.

Correct if I'm wrong, but aren't you trying to throw out the entire theory because it has failed to explain life's origins? Evolution doesn't try to explain the origin of life. Do you doubt that the fossil record shows that some creatures (whales, horses, etc.) evolved from an earlier appearance?

 

[CryptoLutheran]

"In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth"....please read the rest. Emphasis on read and not interpret. 1st day, 2nd day, "and God created great whales, and every living thing that moveth"..etc. What part of that is difficult? It seems there is a need for Bible interpretation whenever it doesn't match a doctrine.

You're presenting a false dichotomy between "just reading" and "interpretation". That doesn't exist. We are both interpreting, it's just that we are interpreting it differently.

Interpretation is how we perceive and make sense of something, whether it be a circumstance, an action, a conversation or a text.

When we read the Bible we do nothing but interpret it. The question then becomes how do we interpret it and what tools we use for that purpose.

I believe the Bible deserves the respect and reverence to be taken seriously enough to be examined critically in order to best make sense of what is being said, and that means evaluating literary genre, historical setting, audience, etc.

That's how we take Scripture seriously.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Mr Dave]

- the Welsh flag has a dragon

The Royal Arms of The Monarch has a unicorn too. Not entirely sure what you're trying to prove by this

 

[CryptoLutheran]

The Royal Arms of The Monarch has a unicorn too. Not entirely sure what you're trying to prove by this

I'm incredibly tempted to post the passages where the KJV has rendered the Hebrew as "unicorn".

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Mr Dave]

I'm incredibly tempted to post the passages where the KJV has rendered the Hebrew as "unicorn".

-CryptoLutheran

Please do. Be good to see them. That doesn't mean that they were real creatures (if that was what you were going for)

 

[Assyrian]

Marco Polo described the emperor of china being drawn along in his carriage by fire breathing reptiles...

Google is you friend

http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/74359
I read a quote that said "Marco Polo lived in China around 1271 AD and reported that the emperor raised dragons to pull his chariots in parades." Is that true? What were these dragons?
Marco Polo only wrote about living dragons (i.e. large serpents with two front legs with three toes) being killed and used for various medicinal purposes.
Other than that, the tales of Marco Polo do NOT say anything of the kind regarding the emperor being pulled by them.
However, tales of the first emperor (Huang Di) of China indicate that he was indeed pulled by them... though the tales are regarded as myth.
So the "quote" exists, but not by Maro Polo.​

 

[.Iona.]

Adam is the Hebrew word for man, and as such is representative of what it is to be male.
Eve is the mother of all the living (Gen 3:20) and in the story is representative of what it is to be female and motherly.
Together they represent humankind and are representative of what it is to be human.

The story also shows that humans have failings (done through the story of the fall).
The story explains why things aren't perfect; because evil exists in the world.

I was thinking of this yesterday, and wanted to asking how you explain the fall?

Most Christians i have spoken to say that they were real people and they ate the fruit and all sin goes back to that. but if you say they were not real epople but representatives then how do you see the story?

i see original sin as unfair anyway, but thinking that a representation caused it seems much worse - god clearly didnt have much hope for us in that case.

 

[Mr Dave]

I was thinking of this yesterday, and wanted to asking how you explain the fall?

Most Christians i have spoken to say that they were real people and they ate the fruit and all sin goes back to that. but if you say they were not real epople but representatives then how do you see the story?

i see original sin as unfair anyway, but thinking that a representation caused it seems much worse - god clearly didnt have much hope for us in that case.

The way I see it, the story is explaining that humans aren't perfect, we have free will and as such we will and do make mistakes. Even on a 'literal' reading of Genesis, humans aren't perfect, they are only seen as 'good' in the eyes of the perfect creator. As humans are not perfect, they are naturally inclined towards some sort of 'unrighteous thing or 'evil' thing'.

man is very far gone from original righteousness, and is of his own nature inclined to evil, so that the flesh lusteth always contrary to the spirit

Worship-Book of Commom Prayer-Articles

To me the story is illustrating this fact that for us, our natural state is a 'fallen state'.

As God is the only perfect thing, it is only by remaining with God that us as imperfect beings have hope. 'Flesh lusteth contrary to the spirit' so that with the HS, we can be aligned to the spirit and not contrary to it.

The story shows that doing something contrary to a prescribed rule ("Do not eat the fruit of the tree...") that consequences are there to be had. The story shows that God keeps his promises, as the consequences took place; this also means that God's promises pertaining to life are also going to be kept.